Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be .further considered upon Thursday.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To he read a Second time tomorrow

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Ordered for Second Reading read.

To he read a Second time upon Thursday.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with the New Clause as added on Consideration of the Bill as amended.
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Stansted) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to he upon the Table;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session:
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Children at Risk (Register)

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to seek to introduce for parents a right of appeal against their children's names being registered as at risk; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): No, Sir. The decision to place a child's name on a register is an administrative procedure which does not involve a change in the legal status of the child, and therefore a right of appeal is not appropriate. Good professional practice should, however, entail keeping parents informed and involved.

Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply Does he agree that the placing of a child on the "at risk" register inevitably becomes known and puts its parents in an invidious position if the placing on the register has been inaccurate or based on false information? Will he consider issuing guidelines to social services departments to ensure that parents are adequately involved at the earliest possible stage and have an adequate chance to get their child's name removed?

Mr. Newton: I certainly accept that this is an area where great care is needed, and I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, I hope he will agree that we should take proper steps to ensure the protection of children who may be at risk. The balance is a difficult one.

Mr. Baldry: At a time when there is growing concern about the number of children in danger, does not the "at risk" register provide a straightforward and simple way of ensuring some protection for children who might be in danger? Would not increasing the bureaucracy defeat the system, which is working well?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has confirmed some of the reservations that I express. There is a difficult balance here, and I note the point made by my hon. Friend.

Standing Charges

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from pensioners and others regarding the implications for the social security system of the payment by them of standing charges for gas, electricity and telephone; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): Representations are received from time to time that pensioners should not be required to pay standing charges for gas, electricity or telephones. These are matters for the industries concerned. The social system contributes significantly towards heating costs, including standing charges, through the indices used to set benefit levels.

Mr. Skinner: Do I take it from that answer that this Government, with the new caring image that they tried to portray at the Tory party conference, are not going ,to do anything about standing charges? Is the Minister aware that it would cost only about £300 million to abolish these charges for pensioners?
British Telecom allowed the City institutions to make a financial killing out of its privatisation and it is likely to be the same with British Gas. If there is enough money in the country to line the pockets of those crooks in the City, why do the Government not abolish standing charges for pensioners?

Mr. Major: On a point of information, the cost would be not £300 million but £600 million. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, on the question of caring, that supplementary benefit heating additions have risen by one and a half times the rise in fuel prices since this Government came to power.

Mr. McCrindle: If standing charges for social security recipients were abolished, would that not put up the unit costs of telephones, electricity and gas? How much benefit would that be to pensioners and others on benefits? If those costs were passed on to the population, would that not bring in many people on low incomes?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is right. He explains precisely why statutory industry consumer councils do not favour the abolition of standing charges. Abolition would increase unit costs dramatically, particularly for pensioners who use large amounts of fuel.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that a Bill before the House would remove standing charges for pensioners without increasing the unit costs of gas and electricity? Does he further accept that this winter many pensioners will die from hypothermia because they are afraid to turn on their gas heaters and will not be able to pay their gas and electricity bills? Will the Minister abolish standing charges for pensioners so that they do not have to experience another freezing winter because they cannot pay their bills?

Mr. Major: I have made clear the Government's position on standing charges. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that heating assistance comes in a variety of ways. In addition to supplementary benefit and heating additions, I shall shortly be bringing before the House proposals to replace the previous exceptionally severe weather payments.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that in the first half of 1985 20 per cent. more pensioners over the age of 80 died of hypothermia than in the whole of 1984? Will he take action to prevent that and seriously consider abolishing standing charges to save old people from suffering?

Mr. Major: I have made clear twice that abolishing standing charges is not necessarily the way to deal with the problem. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about hypothermia. That is why we have made significant increases in heating additions over the last few years. The Minister for Health is studying the figures for hypothermia for last winter to find out precisely why there was an increase in deaths from hypothermia.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep feeling among many pensioners about the unfairness of standing charges? Is he further aware that the telephone can mean the difference between life and death for many elderly people living alone? Will my hon. Friend at least look at the problem in relation to telephones and the social security system?

Mr. Major: I understand what my hon. Friend says and I know of his long-standing concern about the problem, but the abolition of standing charges does not seem to be well targeted, and it is not necessarily the best way of dealing with the problem.

Health Authorities (Costs)

Mr. Knowles: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further savings he envisages can be made by health authorities from cost improvement programmes in 1986–87.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress made in obtaining value for money in the National Health Service.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Health authorities in England have made substantial progress in obtaining improved value for money in recent years. Cost improvement programmes have yielded savings of over £250 million in the last two financial years. This is a direct increase in the resources available to develop and improve service to patients. For 1986–87, authorities plan further cash savings of some £150 million.

Mr. Knowles: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Would the public be right to conclude that the substantial savings already made—and those still to be made — have contributed to the largest ever capital building programme in the NHSS?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. Over £130 million is to be spent on the capital building programme this year. We are restoring the cuts in the capital building programme made by the last Labour Government. In view of the pathetic


story in ihe Dairy Mirror today I must say that over the next three years we plan to complete more than 100 major new hospial schemes. Altogether, we have 380 hospital schemes in the hospital building programme.

Mr. Forsyth: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the contracting out process in the National Health Service has produced substantial savings which are being used for patient care?

Mr. Fowler: The latest figures show that that has produced £63 million, with about half the operation completed. All those savings are going into direct patient care, which shows the worth of the competitive tendering process.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the millions of people throughout the country who saw the television programmes broadcast last night and last week surely cannot believe a word that the right hon. Gentleman says about the NHS, either with regard to savings or any other matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the evidence given in those programmes shows the rapid decay of the Health Service throughout the country?

Mr. Fowler: Record resources are being devoted to the Health Service. Even more important, a record amount of health care is being provided through the NHS under this Government. No amount of television programmes can deny that fact.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Secretary of State studied the report of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, which shows that cost efficiency savings—which are really disguised cuts—have reached the end of their lives? Therefore, would it not be absolute nonsense to suggest that in 1986 and 1987 there will be greater patient care from savings that simply cannot be made?

Mr. Fowler: Quite simply, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The health authorities are planning on a cost improvement programme of £150 million for the year 1986–87.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Cuts.

Mr. Fowler: They arc not cuts, but resources that are now being directed into patient care. I would have thought that that was what the Health Service was all about.

Mr. Sims: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that a number of hospitals in the private sector appear to be able to operate at lower true operating costs than hospitals in the public sector? Are there not lessons to be learnt from that?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that there are lessons to be learnt, but, to give credit to the NHS, we must recognise the enormous improvements that it has made over the past four or five years in effectiveness, especially in management within the service.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that both the National Association of Health Authorities and the BMA believe that under current financing plans the NHS will be £650 million short this year to maintain even its existing standards? How will the Government pay for the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman at the Tory party conference to increase the number of hip operations, heart bypass operations, bone marrow transplants,

cataract operations and cervical cancer screening, which, in total, will cost an additional £150 million a year? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be honest and admit that those improvements can he afforded only by major cuts elsewhere in the NHS?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman's claim is wholly untrue. The money and resources for those improvements are already in our plans and they build on the improvements that we have made since 1978. For example, since then heart bypass operations have risen by more than 7,000—an increase of 230 per cent. over the last Labour Government — hip replacements have risen by almost 10,000—an improvement of 35 per cent. over the last Labour Government — and cataract operations have risen from 35,000 to 55,000. All those are vast improvements over the last Labour Government.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Leeds and other areas hospital authorities are making savings in their budgets by giving patients prescriptions for only seven days, so that they have to obtain repeat prescriptions from a doctor at additional cost to themselves? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in some cases chemists 'are advising patients not to have their prescriptions dispensed but to ask their doctors for one prescription for a longer period to try to avoid the patient having to bear that additional cost? Surely it is nonsense to transfer money in that way so that in the end the patient has to pay?

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly study any real evidence that the hon. Gentleman can supply on that matter. I know of no general evidence to suggest that prescription charges are having such an effect.

NHS Manpower

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further plans he has for the better use of manpower in the National Health Service.

Mr. Fowler: We are continuing to build upon the success already achieved in improving the use of National Health Service manpower to provide a better service to patients. This is part of a continuing process to improve the use of NHS manpower, and the proportion of staff working directly with patients increased from 58 per cent. in 1978 to 63 per cent. in 1985.

Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the great strides that he has made in the contracting out of laundry and catering services. However, what plans does he have for contracting out medical services, especially where a health authority has long waiting lists and the private sector can provide a better and cheaper service than the health authority?

Mr. Fowler: I have no plans of the sort that my hon. Friend puts forward. However, we are in favour of there being the maximum co-operation between the National Health Service and the private sector.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State accept the analysis of the increases in nursing manpower levels which was presented in last night's "Panorama" programme. which showed that his claims, when analysed in depth, display a contraction of the degree of nursing available for patient care? If he does not accept that analysis, does he intend to take "Panorama" to court?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that the opportunity of taking "Panorama" to court arises, but I do not accept the statement as it has been repeated by the hon. Gentleman. Since 1978, almost 63,000 more nurses and midwives have been employed within the NHS.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we agree that 66,000 more nurses and 22,000 more doctors have entered the Health Service over the past few years, hospital beds are being closed and our letter bags become fuller and fuller of complaints about delayed operations? Is it possible that hospital manpower is directed too much towards administration and not enough towards nursing? Is it not time that patients had more say in the matter than those who run the service?

Mr. Fowler: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's final point. The proportion of manpower involved in direct patient care—in nursing and so forth —has increased, not decreased. That is the emphasis of the manpower policy.

Mr. Dobson: In view of the "Panorama" programme last night and other evidence throughout the country that doctors are having to spend a vast amount of their time finding beds for patients who need them, would not the Minister's plans for the better use of manpower be more useful if he ensured that doctors are able to do the job for which they have been trained, which is curing patients, rather than undertaking the administrative task of finding beds and operating theatres to enable them to cope with patients' needs?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows that record numbers of in-patients are currently being treated within the Health Service, and hundreds of thousands more than were treated under the previous Labour Government.

North Western Regional Health Authority

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has had further discussions with the chairman of the North Western regional health authority about the authority's capital expenditure programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 August setting out the state of play at that date. Since then we have had no particular meetings with Sir John Page, the chairman of the North Western regional health authority, on this subject, although I have met him several times, and I shall be in North-Western region tomorrow.

Mr. Thurnham: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Is she aware of the great concern in Bolton that there should be no delay in starting the new hospital building programme? Will she give a commitment that there will be adequate funds to ensure an early start to the building and operation of this much needed development?

Mrs. Currie: Yes, indeed. Despite the article in this morning's Daily Mirror, I am able to confirm that the programme of rebuilding the Bolton general hospital, to which I think my hon. Friend is referring, is due to start, as agreed, in September 1989. Some work is under way already. The region's plan to upgrade the X-ray

department and to extend the pathology department at a cost of over £1 million is already out to tender, and work will start on site in April next year.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Lady aware that the United Kingdom regional development programme 1986, which has been published today in national newspapers, in commenting on health care in the regions of the north, said that the inadequate resources available to cater for people's health problems meant that the problems were not being resolved?
As the document is a Government publication and an admission that insufficient resources are made available, why do the Government not do what Conservative and Labour supporters up and down the country are demanding and spend more money on the National Health Service? Why does the Minister resist that and favour making stupid, pathetic statements in the north of England, which only serve to upset people, as part of her public relations self-promotion campaign?

Mrs. Currie: When the Conservative party came into office in 1979 the National Health Service in many parts of the country, including the north of England, was in a pathetic state. We therefore took on board the point that the hon. Gentleman failed to make at that time—that not enough money was being spent. I am glad to report that, in the north-west alone, we have spent £27 million on the Royal Preston hospital, and £17–9 million on phase 1 of Hope hospital, Salford. We are in the process of spending £12 million on phase 2 of Tameside general hospital and £19 million on phase 2 of Manchester royal infirmary. I have a long list of hospitals. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to read out all of them, I shall do so.
As for the problems of health care in the north, it is a fact that there are many thousands of people in hospitals suffering from coronary heart disease, lung cancer and other illnesses which are preventable. I invite the hon. Gentleman to join us in our campaign to reduce that toll.

Mr. Sackville: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the north-west 10-year hospital building programme will cost in excess of £400 million? Will she ensure that all efforts are made to avoid any delays in start dates and that resources are made available to ensure that the revenue consequences of this huge programme are met?

Mrs. Currie: The north-west region has the second highest capital allocation in England. This year it is about £71–5 million. As my hon. Friend knows, that compares with the 1978 figure of only £36 million. In other words, under this Government, in cash terms, the figure has doubled. I take the point that my hon. Friend made about cash being made available to open schemes. That is the basis on which schemes are agreed. The problems to which he referred should have been eradicated.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the hon. Lady aware that my constituents in the North West regional health authority area are fed up with the boasting and complacency of the Secretary of State, now echoed by herself? My constituents measure value for money in a simple way: they have paid their national insurance contributions all their working lives, and when they need a cataract operation they are told that they will be placed on a waiting list of two to three years, unless they go private, when they can have the operation the following week.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman would not seek to deny that we are now looking after far more patients in the North West region, as we are throughout the country. Some of the waiting lists reflect the fact that services have been created where there were none before and that the operations are successful where they were less successful before. In other words, success is breeding its own demand. We are glad to recognise that and to provide the resources to meet it.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I add my good wishes to my hon. Friend in her onerous task. When she meets the chairman of the North West regional health authority tomorrow, will she express to him the concern expressed to me by my constituents and by many constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the potential closure of the children's arthritic ward at Wrightington hospital, which is a regional specialty and could well be a national specialty? Will she express her concern, as expressed to her predecessor by a wide-ranging delegation, and assure me categorically that she will not take a decision to close that ward until she has had a chance to hear the views of those who care enough about the future of the hospital?

Mrs. Currie: I should be delighted to take the opportunity to meet and discuss this question with my hon. Friend and take into account the points that he has made. I am quite certain that whatever plans are arranged and carried through will be for the benefit of the children concerned.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Tomorrow, when the Minister enjoys her fish and chips in the north-west, will she take the opportunity to ask Sir John Page how the region finances its capital building programme, which was the point to which the original question referred? Will she ask him, for example, whether it is a fact that much of that capital programme is financed from existing services, with those services consequently having to close down to finance new capital expenditure? Will the hon. Lady ask the chairman of the region whether it is a fact that, if a district health authority in the north-west sells assets, only a proportion of those assets return to the district, the rest being taken to finance capital projects in other parts of the region?

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. May I first remind him that I learnt to make fish and chips in the north-west, where I was born and brought up. A substantial part of the capital programme is intended, as the hon. Gentleman knows—indeed, he has called for this — to replace old and outdated facilities. It does not make sense for us to spend money keeping Victorian hospitals going when we could spend perhaps the same or only slightly more to create brand new facilities which will last well into the next century. That is the the view that we take. As far as I am aware, it has always been the case that capital is taken by the region and redistributed and that the districts have a substantial claim to that money. But if another district, which may well serve the hon. Gentleman's constituents, has a need also, it is right that the money should go there.

Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Corbyn: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants in Islington, North are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit; and what is the equivalent figure for June 1983.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): Islington, North is one of six constituencies served for social security purposes by the Department's offices at Finsbury Park, Highgate and Hoxton. In May 1983, 41,373 people were receiving supplementary benefit from these three offices. In May this year this figures was 50,530.

Mr. Corbyn: Would the Minister care to reflect on the fact that that represents a grave increase in poverty throughout the area concerned? What staffing cuts have there been at the three offices? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the staffing cuts have led to a high level of rent arrears among people on housing benefit and often to claims being wrongly assessed because there are insufficient staff to deal with them, leading consequently to great misery among the people of the area and to unacceptable delays in dealing with queues of urgent cases involving supplementary benefit allocations?

Mr. Lyell: On the question of overall poverty, the hon. Gentleman should remember that since 1979 the volume of social security spending has risen by 35 per cent. and that nearly half that spending represents real increases in the average benefits paid to meet those needs. We recognise the staffing problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As a result, we have increased the complement for those three offices from 500 to 582 staff, and we are building towards that figure.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister realise that the staffing increases proposed by his Department are totally inadequate to provide a proper, prompt and decent service to claimants in those offices serving not only the northern but the southern part of Islington'? What are the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals to ensure that claimants are treated decently, properly, and promptly rather than as Dickensian supplicants?

Mr. Lyell: We are anxious that all claimants should be treated properly, but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that an increase of 82 on 500—an increase in complement of some 25 per cent. at the Finsbury Park office—is totally inadequate. We are taking steps to ensure that the refurbishment of that office, which was improved last year, is maintained.

Mrs. Beckett: As many of those in greater poverty are the long-term unemployed, as their numbers are increasing and as the Government have told the Common Market, whatever they may tell the people of this country, that they expect that to continue, can the Minister tell us when the Government expect to pay the long-term unemployed the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and bring them up to the poverty line?

Mr. Lyell: Our whole objective is to target our benefits towards those in real need. Those have been identified, above all, as families with low incomes. The House will know that our benefits have been targeted in that direction.

Day Nurseries

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many new day nursery places have been provided by social services departments in the year 1985–86.

Mrs. Currie: There were 28,870 day nursery places provided by local authority social services departments in


England at 31 March 1985. Final figures for 31 March 1986 are not yet available. However, the returns received so far show that the number of places increased in 19 authorities, decreased in 15 and remained the same in 57. Overall, there were a similar number of places at 31 March 1986 as the year before.

Mr. Boyes: Does that not show that the situation is inadequate if one considers that the number of children subjected to physical and sexual abuse is increasing and that that leads to an increased demand for day nursery places? For example, in Sunderland the number of non-accidental injury registrations has increased by 50 per cent. over the past three years. What is more, Sunderland has a known demand that it cannot satisfy. Are not the care and protection of our children essential elements in a democratic society? What is the Minister going to do about the problems of Sunderland and other local authorities in a similar position?

Mrs. Currie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we take the problem of child abuse very seriously. It is a matter of increasing worry and concern. The number of places nationally should be set in the context of the 28,000 places I have just mentioned, 24,000 places in voluntary and private nurseries, 42,000 full-time and 224,000 part-time places in nursery schools and nursery classes run by the local education authorities, 58,000 childminders, with places for 126,000 children and more than 400,000 places in playgroups. I consider that diversity and volume of services to be adequate.

Mr. Galley: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her new post. As she has now been in office for a few weeks, may I ask her what plans she has developed to encourage social services depts to use registered childminders as an adjunct to and replacement of day nurseries, because the cost per place is more than half of day nursery provision? In that way she will be able to help twice as many children for the same resources.

Mrs. Currie: I agree with my hon. Friend that childminder provision is most important. I can speak on that from personal experience. We are delighted to see that the number of childminder places went up by 29 per cent. between 1982 and 1985, and we encourage local authorities to improve that provision.

Ms. Harman: Is the hon. Lady aware that the DHSS under-fives initiative ends in April next year? Will she make a statement about the future of projects financed under that scheme? Is she aware that a number of projects providing services for children under five are at risk because they are located in council areas —[Interruption.] Is she aware that those projects at risk include three childminder support projects'? They are at risk of closure because they are located in boroughs which are being subjected to severe spending restrictions by the Department of the Environment. Will the hon. Lady, at the very least, consider a joint transitional funding arrangement so that her Department can pay half if local councils pay half of the cost of those projects which end in April next year?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to listen to the answers and questions.

Mrs. Currie: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the Government's under-fives initiative. We have spent some £6–5 million over the past three years

funding 110 different projects with 15 different agencies. The whole idea and intention was that it should be a pump-priming exercise. Many of those schemes have proven their worth and already have guaranteed funding from next year onwards.

Board and Lodging Allowances

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the changes introduced in the board and lodgings allowance system.

Mr. Major: We have received representations from various interested individuals and organisations about the ordinary board and lodge system and I have recently met the National Confederation of Registered Rest Homes Association to discuss the residential care sector.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that these new regulations are a disgrace, and are particularly vindictive against young homeless people? This is typified in the case of an 18-year-old who has lived in Burnley and Accrington all his life, but left his parents at the age of two, is no longer able to live with the people who were caring for him, and has now been told that after a certain number of weeks he must move on from Burnley if he wants to continue to receive his benefit? Is this not a disgrace, and should not these regulations be changed?

Mr. Major: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am familiar with the particular case that he raised, about which we have been in correspondence, and I am glad to say that the young man concerned is now in full employment. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. We have carefully monitored the results of the board and lodging regulations, and many of the fears expressed when they were originally introduced have not come to fruition.

Mr. Malins: A great number of people in receipt of board and lodging payments are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Is this not unsatisfactory, and should we not move to abolish it at an early opportunity?

Mr. Major: That is not a matter for me, but I am aware that local authorities have strong powers concerning bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Where appropriate, I hope that they will exercise those powers.

Mr. Hugh Brown: In the process of monitoring the operation of the board and lodging regulations, has the Minister found any evidence that unscrupulous landlords are switching to providing furnished accommodation? Has the Minister any knowledge of a recent programme on Scottish television which highlighted abuses in this sector, particularly of young people?

Mr. Major: I have not seen the Scottish programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he gives me details I shall endeavour to do so. I am concerned that in certain areas there may have been an element of collusion between the landlords and the tenants over the regulations. There is some evidence that, as a result of our new regulations, many rental charges have been held, or in some cases reduced.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend consider that a private landlord is placed at an unreasonable


disadvantage compared with the local housing authority in the matter of direct access to reimbursement of benefit for board and lodging?

Mr. Major: It would be a generally attractive notion were the privately rented sector again in a position to offer more accommodation, particularly for young people. I hope that we shall soon reach that position.

Hospital Closures

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to which hospitals in the London area are currently under consideration for closure.

Mr. Newton: In the London area, and I refer to the former GLC area, there are five hospitals whose total closure is either under formal public consultation, or where the consultation procedure has been completed but no final decision has yet been taken.
The hospitals are Neasden hospital in Brent, the West London hospital in the Riverside health authority, New Cross hospital in Lewisham and north Southwark, St. James' hospital in Wandsworth, and New End hospital in Hampstead.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are very angry at the threatened closure of St. James's hospital because of the valuable service that it provides, and, furthermore, that they are angry at the misleading way in which the Secretary of State bandied lists of hospital openings at the Tory party conference? Will he confirm that the truth about the hospital openings and closures list is that since the Government took office, 53 hospitals have opened or are planned to be opened, while 217 have been closed? That is the list, in my hand.

Mr. Newton: I accept that the Government are carrying through a larger than ever building programme in the National Health Service system. I noted in the Daily Mirror this morning the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) expressing some doubt about whether that programme would be completed. There is no doubt that his remarks are a throwback to his experience with the Labour Government.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past 20 years millions of people have moved out of London, and that the extra resources that are needed in constituencies such as mine, because people have moved there, must come from their getting a fairer share of the money? Is it not the case that the inefficiency of many London hospitals is responsible for squeezing resources in our areas?

Mr. Newton: I certainly endorse the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks that it is right to continue to ensure an equitable distribution of health resources around the country.

Mr. Meacher: Why does the Government's health record always involve fiddling the statistics? Is the Secretary of State aware that his deputy, the then Minister for Health, stated in a parliamentary answer on 4 July that the total number of building projects under this Government was not 380, as the Secretary of State boasted at the Tory party conference, but only 153? Is he aware, as the Daily Mirror correctly stated today, that many of those projects will not start until the mid-1990s and that

many will probably not start at all? Why cannot the Secretary of State be more honest and inventive about running the Health Service and less anxious about trying to save his political skin by fiddling the statistics?

Mr. Newton: Before the hon. Gentleman accuses anybody of fiddling the statistics, I invite him to recognise that he has compared figures for projects of over £2 million with projects of over £1 million. Let him stop fiddling the figures. The Government have no need to fiddle the figures. The hon. Gentleman has to resort to fiddling because he is so ashamed of the record of the Government of which he was a member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with President Soares of Portugal. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the increase in mortgage rates announced today, will the Prime Minister tell the House how much of the £4 billion that her Government borrowed in September was used to shore up the pound during the Tory party conference in Bournemouth?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that it is not the practice to comment in any way on intervention. Naturally, we are reluctant to increase interest rates, but when it becomes necessary to do so in order to keep downward pressure on inflation, we do not hesitate to take that step.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to congratulate the city of Glasgow on being the United Kingdom's nominee for the European city of culture 1990? Will my right hon. Friend also refute the absurd allegations by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh that Edinburgh's bid failed for political reasons? Is it not the case that Glasgow's hid was simply miles better?

The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation to congratulate the city of Glasgow on winning the accolade of the city of culture and wish it well.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying just 11 days ago at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to conquer unemployment, north and south? How does she reconcile that with her Government's admission to the European regional development fund that, with unchanged policies, the future is frighteningly bleak, or with a policy of cutting public investment by more than 10 per cent. during the next two years? How can she say that she wants to conquer unemployment when unemployment is the weapon which she has mercilessly used for the past seven years and which she intends to go on using?

The Prime Minister: The report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities designed to support their bids for grants from the European regional development fund. The figures to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are the very same planning assumptions which appear in


the public expenditure survey, and there is nothing new. It is those figures applied to existing differentials. We have followed the practice of previous Governments in this.

Mr. Kinnock: None of that alters the fact that that document is a devastating indictment from within the Government of the Government's own record. If the right hon. Lady is concerned about unemployment, why does she not take the hint from that report and undertake public investment in Wales, in Scotland and in the northwest, north-east and south-west of England, to generate jobs now and provide a foundation for employment in the future instead of following the policy on which she insists?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is tackling our record on providing capital expenditure for infrastructure, I remind him that the last Labour Government cut public sector capital expenditure by 20 per cent., National Health Service capital expenditure by 30 per cent. and expenditure on roads by 36 per cent. It is we who have restored many of those public sector programmes.

Mr. Kinnock: Nobody believes that. Will the right hon. Lady say whether she is prepared to accept the statement of the CBI that unless the Government take the initiative now on capital projects the United Kingdom will lose its chance and slip further behind in the competitive league? If she will not listen to the demands from all over England, Wales and Scotland, from the Opposition and from many others, will she accept the demands of the CBI?

The Prime Minister: May I say exactly what has happened with regard to spending on roads —[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear the facts. Capital spending on motorways and trunk roads has increased by 25 per cent. in real terms to £900 million, National Health Service capital expenditure has increased by 22 per cent. in real terms since 1979, there has been investment of £2 ½ billion in railways and £5 billion on fixed assets in the gas industry, and capital expenditure on housing renovation is up 54 per cent. in real terms. Which of those figures does the right hon.. Gentleman say is wrong?

Sir Peter Hordern: In considering the Peacock committee report, will my right hon. Friend uphold the recommendation about the need to improve the standards of service of the BBC, which have sunk to an all-time low so that, far from following the public service concept of informing, educating and entertaining, the BBC is now guilty of misinformation and even libel? Does not a heavy responsibility rest on the chairman and governors of the BBC to root out those responsible and to improve the standards of the corporation generally?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the chairman designate of the BBC will wish to do everthing possible to achieve the highest possible standards for the BBC, which is the point of my hon. Friend's question and the wish of everyone.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister confirm the statement that came out of No. 10 Downing street yesterday from Mr. Bernard Ingham that the Government will not enter the EMS until after the next election? As our non-membership of the exchange rate mechanism has cost us so heavily, will the Prime Minister give some comfort to the millions of people who face a 1¼ per cent. increase in their mortgage rate?

The Prime Minister: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, there is no change in the Government's position in relation to the EMS. I should point out, however, that although many of those who ask to go into the EMS think that it is somehow a soft option, we should probably have sharper and more rapid increases and decreases in interest rates if we belonged to the EMS than otherwise.

Mr. Jackson: In view of my right hon. Friend's special responsibilities for science, will she take the opportunity today to look into the damage being done to the science budget by the impact of international exchange rate fluctuations?

The Prime Minister: We have been as generous as we possibly can with the science budget. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have made provision for more expenditure in the universities, especially for young people who hitherto were not able to have their theses considered. I will certainly look into the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I do not think that it is possible to compensate for it.

Mr. Cunliffe: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cunliffe: Will the right hon. Lady quote from that part of the United Kingdom regional development fund report which deals with the north-west and Greater Manchester as a whole, and which speaks of the terrifying prospect for the future for the unemployed and the imminent collapse of the infrastructure services in that area? Is that not a result of the Government's senseless and ruthless economic policies, and what is the right hon. Lady prepared to do to remedy that state of affairs?

The Prime Minister: No. I indicated that that report was compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities. It was designed to support their bids for grants from the European regional development fund. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to look at it he will find a copy in the Library, together with a copy of all previous reports under this and previous Labour Governments.

Mr. Dickens: As the Opposition have given notice at their party conferences that they will abandon our nuclear defences, does my right hon. Friend consider that the red rose of the Labour party should be replaced by the white feather?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the Labour party will ever win an election, but if it did it would be catastrophic for the defences of Britain.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today thinking about Aberfan and considering the needs of a community which, over the past 20 years, has rebuilt its future after the tragedy and disaster of 20 years ago this week?

The Prime Minister: I most certainly will. I was shadowing the Ministry of Fuel and Power when that tragedy occurred. I took part in the debate on that occasion and it is etched on my mind.

Mr. Hannam: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Sunday Times showing that the reductions in taxation on the top earners in Britain and in the United States since 1979 has resulted in an increase in revenue to


this country? Does not that expose the fallacy of the Labour party's policy, which presumes to raise £3–5 billion from an increase in the level of taxation on top earners?

The Prime Minister: Yes. A reduction in the top rate of tax increased the yield from the top tax earners. We also need those top tax earners if we are to create the new businesses upon which new jobs depend. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: In view of the sympathy which the Prime Minister has extended to the Prime Minister of Mozambique on the untimely death of President Samora Machel, can we expect her to tell the Government of South Africa that if they take steps to use this untimely death to further destabilise Mozambique the eyes of the world will be upon them and the whole situation in southern Africa — not merely South Africa — will deteriorate in an international way?

The Prime Minister: The death of President Samora Machel was a great shock and a great tragedy, not only for the people of that country, but for the whole of southern Africa. Naturally, we shall be watching the situation very carefully indeed. Our views on South Africa are well known. We dislike and deplore apartheid, but we wish its abolition to come from negotiation and not from sanctions.

Mr. Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend may have read a report about the ill-timed visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Berlin and West Germany last week. Will she take every opportunity to reassure the people of Berlin, West Germany and our own armed forces that the Government and the people of the United Kingdom will never betray them?

The Prime Minister: I made it very clear when I went to Berlin that the defence of the West within NATO is indivisible and that we stand by our guarantee to Berlin.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lomond Will the right hon. Lady be taking time today to have discussions with the chairman of the Conservative party, in an effort to clear him of the allegations that he has been leaning heavily on Tory Members of Parliament in an attempt to prevent : 

The Prime Minister: I do not answer questions about party political matters from this Dispatch Box —[Interruption.]—and I do not necessarily accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if she acceded to Opposition requests to cancel the Trident

programme, thousands of jobs would be lost in Scotland, including at the Ravenscraig plant, which supplies the steel for Trident submarines? Do we not hear double standards from the Opposition on the issue of unemployment as well as on defence?

The Prime Minister: I should make it clear that Trident is a vital part of our defence, and this Government will go ahead with the Trident programme.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some monents ago.

Mr. Wardell: What guarantee can the Prime Minister give that anyone needing a blood transfusion will receive blood that is AIDS-free?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health is doing everything that he can to ensure that that is possible.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly out of questions?

Mr. Ashton: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) asked the Prime Minister a specific and important question about allegations in the press that witnesses have been interfered with by the chairman of the Conservative party. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the answers that are given.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. which arises out of questions. During Question Time my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the United Kingdom's regional development programme. It is the first time that the Government have spelt out the stark future facing all our regions. The Prime Minister replied by trying to fudge the importance of the document and said that it was a compilation of the views of various regional and local authorities. In paragraph 1·3 of the Government's own submission it says:
The United Kingdom Regional Development Programme sets out the economic difficulties of the regions and the Government's policies for alleviating these difficulties.
For that reason, I submit that the Prime Minister has misled the House, and that there should be a statement on this point.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman made an application for a statement to be made it might be considered, but that point is not a matter for me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly out of questions?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point of order arises from a matter raised at Question Time. You have repeatedly told the House, Mr. Speaker, that you would deprecate any action on the part of an hon. Member that brought the House into disrepute. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) raised a question involving the possibility that the House had been brought into disrepute by a right hon. Member who is also a member of the Cabinet. Would it not be wise of you to


use whatever means are open to you to ask the Attorney-General to come to the House to answer questions about influence being exerted by a Cabinet member on Back Benchers and others, which might well be contrary to the law and which might lead the Attorney-General to want to make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to ask Ministers to come before the House to answer allegations which, judging from what I hear and read, are pure speculation.

Lord Maybray-King

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make.
The House will have learned with sorrow of the death, during the summer recess, of Lord Maybray-King, Speaker of this House from 1965 to 1970.
First elected to the house in 1947, Horace King quickly established himself as a highly respected Back Bencher. After 10 years' experience as a Chairman of Standing Committees, he became Chairman of Ways and Means in 1964 and a year later was elected Speaker, the first holder of that office to be drawn from the Labour party. Much of the respect and affection in which he was held by members of all parties derived from his instinctive sense of community with Back Bench Members, from among whom he was directly drawn as Speaker, and with whom he never lost touch.
Several Members present may recall his farewell speech to the House in December 1970. In a striking sentence he said:
The bedrock of this House is allegiance not so much to the individual in the Chair as to the stored wisdom, the procedure, customs and courtesies of which he is the guardian and the exponent".— [Official Report, 10 December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 671]
This blend of personal humility and pride in the office of Speaker was typical of the man. His ever present sense of humour and feel for the House enabled him to defuse difficult, even menacing, situations with the lightest of touches.
We salute his memory and extend to his family our sincere sympathy in their loss.

Visas

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about visas.
As the House will know, I announced on 1 September that the Government had decided, in principle, to impose visas on citizens of Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. On 6 October I announced that the change in respect of the Indian sub-continent would take effect from 15 October. For Ghana the date of implementation will be 23 October. It will be some time yet before the necessary arrangements for staff and accommodation can be completed in Nigeria, and we shall announce a date later for implementation. The necessary changes to the immigration rules have been presented. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will find time for them to be debated before Parliament is prorogued.
Four of the five countries I have mentioned already require visas of British citizens. We would have preferred to continue to allow their citizens to come here without prior examination, requiring pre-entry clearance only for settlement, employment and similar purposes. But the pressure on the immigration control made that arrangement increasingly unsatisfactory and occasionally unworkable. The volume of traffic and its difficulty alike increased. Excluding British and other European Community nationals, the number admitted grew from 6 million in 1981 to 8·5 million in 1985. Whereas 13,000' of these passengers were refused admission and removed from the United Kingdom in 1981, the figure was nearly 18,000 in 1985 and rose to 22,000 in the 12 months ended June 1986.
Passengers from the five countries constituted a significant proportion of these refusals: 49 per cent. in 1985 and 53 per cent. in the year ended this June. There has been no change in the qualifications for entry or in the practice of immigration officers. So these figures reflected the growing pressure of people not eligible for admission seeking to come to this country. The need to examine more passengers in detail at the port of entry submitted not only them but others to delay. While passengers were being examined, they had either to be given temporary admission, often at risk to the control, or to be kept in detention, neither of which was satisfactory.
When those seeking entry as visitors from a particular country include a sizeable minority who may be trying to come here for other purposes it is, in our view, much better that the necessary inquiries and authorisations should he made before the journey starts rather than under pressure at the port of entry.
In order to safeguard the interests of bona fide visitors, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has strengthened the staff of our posts in the sub-continent so that visas can be issued in an orderly manner.
During the four days before the introduction of visas, there was a sharp increase in the number of passengers from the sub-continent arriving at London Heathrow. Included among these were a substantial number of young men, particularly from Bangladesh, who were clearly trying to use the last days of the old system to take advantage of its weaknesses. Despite the acute physical difficulties, I decided that these men should not all be


temporarily admitted at once but should be examined in the usual way. I am glad to report that, thanks to much patient hard work by the immigration service, this process is now virtually complete. Since the introduction of the new system last week, incoming flights have included only a handful of people from these countries without visas, and the system is now working satisfactorily.
For the countries concerned, it will now be at our overseas posts, and not at the ports of entry, that the main decision will be made. The guidelines on the handling of Members' representations will in our view need altering to reflect this. At the port of entry, the immigration officer will normally no longer have to exercise a judgment on whether a passenger—claiming, say, to be a visitor—is bona fide.
That judgment will now be exercised when the visa application is considered. There is, of course, a right of appeal against refusal of a visa. I do not believe that, in addition to this safeguard, the airlines or travel operators should be led to believe that individuals arriving here without visas will be automatically admitted if a Member of this House intervenes on their behalf. This is a matter which the House will want to discuss, and I shall accordingly place the necessary amendment to the guidelines in the Library and the Vote Office tomorrow. I shall not implement this change regarding Members' representations until the House has had an opportunity to discuss it.
In conclusion, I wish to record my warmest thanks to all of the various services at Heathrow and elsewhere who rallied with speed, resourcefulness and efficiency to cope with the intense pressures of last week. The outcome, I believe, is that we have introduced what will prove to be a major improvement in the working of our immigration control. As the new system settles down it will improve the position of all bona fide travellers and ease the strains, particularly at Heathrow, which have gradually built up over the last year.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Hon. Members will know that almost the first thing seen by people arriving at Heathrow airport is — [AN HON. MEMBER: "You".] It is certainly not the Home Secretary, who never bothered to go and look at what he had done. What the Home Secretary and the rest of us can see at Heathrow is a huge sign proclaiming, "Welcome to Britain". Last week, the Home Secretary ensured that, for large numbers of people arriving at Heathrow, including hundreds whom the Home Office subsequently recognised as bona fide visitors, the welcome to Britain was personally humiliating for the visitors and shaming to this country's reputation.
Why, in the first place, did the Home Secretary last month decide to impose visa requirements for just five countries? The number of visitors to Britain from those countries is less than one third of those from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and it has risen proportionately much less during the past three years than has the number from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The Home Office cites the growing refusal rate, but it is not some act of God. Rather it is a deliberate policy of the Home Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members are right to applaud that, because it is true.
Can the Home Secretary deny that the Foreign Secretary was opposed to the imposition of these visas? A month ago, the Home Secretary made a speech in which he moaned about the baleful influence of pressure groups —"serpents" he called them. Is it not a fact that he has himself caved in to blackmail from one such pressure group—the breakaway immigration service union, the spokesmen of which have, during the past few days, made statements that have bordered on racialist?
Of course, the reason for imposing these visitors' visas is not one of administrative necessity but one of racial discrimination. That racial discrimination has been highlighted by the degrading scenes at Heathrow airport during the past few days. Anyone could have forecast that the announcement, several days ahead, of the imposition of a visa requirement would lead to a last minute rush. Indeed, I was told by senior immigration officials at Heathrow last week that such a rush was actually anticipated.
The Home Secretary claims that contingency arrangements were made. Did those contingency arrangements allow for almost intolerable pressures on the staff of the British Airports Authority, to whom I pay tribute for the way in which they sought to cope with those pressures? Did those contingency arrangements include cramming 300 people into one small gate room? Did those contingency arrangements include holding in police cells people accused of no crime? Did those contingency arrangements include accommodating other detained people in expensive hotel accommodation with the taxpayer having to foot the bill?
Is the Home Secretary aware that if he were a local councillor he would be surcharged for that wasteful expenditure, because that chaos and that expenditure are the fault of the Home Secretary who decided the policy and chose the date?
Will the Home Secretary give us some information about arrangements for issuing visas in the country of origin? Why is that by last Wednesday, six weeks after the decision to impose visas, the extra officers had still not been sent out to those countries?
The Home Secretary spoke about interference with the stop system for hon. Members. Is he aware that the leaking to the press of that proposed restriction of hon. Members' rights was highly offensive to the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 26 March this year he pledged to the House that there was no suggestion of denying to hon. Members what he called the "valued" stop facility? How can he, in honour, break that undertaking?
Is not the Home Secretary also aware that under the visa procedure the stop facility will still he needed in emergency circumstances—

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not it be more appropriate for these detailed and minor points to be made during the debate that we are to have?

Mr. Speaker: I suspect that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will shortly be coming to a close.

Mr. Kaufman: But, Mr. Speaker, there are large numbers of people in this country who have the right to hear the answers to the questions that I am putting and who will take it ill if hon. Members are not allowed to make representations on their behalf.
Is the Home Secretary aware that last Wednesday, Mr. John de Llanos, the assistant chief immigration officer at terminal 3, told me that possession of a visa would not of itself guarantee entry to this country—despite what the Home Secretary had said?
Is the Home Secretary aware—

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this a gross abuse of the House? Do not the same rules about tedious repetition apply to Front-Bench speakers as to the rest of us?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was a Minister and he knows that it has always been the case that a certain latitude is given to the Front Benches. Nevertheless, the House listened to the Home Secretary with care and will know that there is to be an early debate.

Mr. Kaufman: We are indeed dealing with an abuse, but it is an abuse of the human rights of large numbers of people. Conservative Members are showing, in the way in which they are treating these exchanges, that they give a damn only for the human rights of those with white skins. The Home Secretary has treated people who went to the airport and their relatives, who had come here on visits, as was shown by the Home Office decisions in a majority of cases, like second-class human beings. He would not have done so if their skins had been white, and hon. Members know that.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member is, of course, entitled to ask his questions, and I shall try to answer them, but first I must say that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends cut ludicrous figures as they ambled about Heathrow asserting that all the young men there from the sub-continent were genuine tourists. What total twaddle that was. Are we really asked to believe that those young men all happened to choose the third week in October to come and see the tower of London? The truth is, as has emerged in all our debates on the subject, that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want to tear a hole in immigration control so wide as to make it meaningless.
I shall deal with the specific questions asked by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The five countries which I listed were chosen because they are countries from which come a substantial but growing minority of people whose claim to come here simply as visitors arouses doubt. They are the only five countries to each of which 1,000 passengers were returned last year.
Hon. Members will find in the Library a list of countries from which we require visas and those from which we do not. It shows how absurd it is to claim that the restriction is racialist. I do not feel racially aggrieved, nor did the Leader of the Opposition when he went to India, to find that an Indian visa is necessary. I am sure that as the new system settles down Indians will not feel racially aggrieved either.
We switched 54 extra staff from the immigration service to Heathrow to cope with the situation. If we had followed the advice in which I continue to get in letter after letter from Opposition Members, we should have experienced rush and pressure, not for two or three days, but for two or three weeks, or longer.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned detention costs which do cause concern. Last year we got back about three quarters of those costs from the airlines under existing arrangements. They will be billed again for the events of

last week. The problem of detention and detention costs is one reason—not the main reason—why we are doing away with the present system and causing the discussion and argument, if any, to be resolved before the journey begins rather than when it ends at Heathrow, with all the problems that that brings.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about staff overseas. A total of 39 extra staff are being sent—16 are already there and four more are going today.
The right hon. Gentleman's researches into Hansard did not carry him far enough. He quoted my remarks, but when we discussed the matter in March I was very careful not to rule out further change. That is why I deliberately said:
we shall have to keep a close watch on the way in which t hat position develops during the summer and be ready. if necessary, to adapt further our arrangements and systems." —[Official Report, 26 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 958.]
The right hon. Gentleman reasonably asked about the operation of the new guidelines which I shall table tomorrow. The House will want to look at them carefully and to debate them. I accept that there will be exceptional circumstances as well as normal circumstances and that we shall have to define what they are.
I think that it is a substantial advance that in normal circumstances judgment should be exercised in a calm atmosphere overseas rather than in a hurried and pressured atmosphere at Heathrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there will be a debate on the subject before we prorogue. I appeal to hon. Members to ask questions and not to make comments that they might make in that debate.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not sad between two senior Comonwealth countries that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi should accuse the Government of racism because they have followed India's example in requiring visas? Is it not common sense that much disappointment and unnecessary trouble can be avoided for poor people in these countries if their position is clarified before they leave home?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As I have a very high personal regard for the Prime Minister of India, I can assume only that when he made that remark he was deeply disinformed about the position.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it not true that the Home Secretary under his suave exterior, is presenting an extremely ugly policy that is, in essence, a message to foreign visitors that black faces are not welcome here? How, otherwise, were seven students who arrived here from Chad last week—invited by the British Council and paid for by the Government —refused entry by immigration officials at Heathrow and sent back to Chad at British taxpayers' expense?

Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is new to me. However, it has nothing to do with my announcement today. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of looking at the list, when it is available, of countries from which visas will be required and those from which they will not be required. He will then realise how ludicrous it is to suppose that it was drawn up on a racial basis.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a warm welcome for this reform,


which is long overdue and which will relieve pressure on the vastly overworked immigration service at Heathrow? Is not that service entitled to our thanks and gratitude for its work on this problem during the past few months?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Members of Parliament do not want to act as a court of appeal for the decisions of immigration officers? Will he consider whether the benefits of the visa system should be extended to every country outside the Common Market? There are many advantages to be gained from that, especially for security and the prevention of terrorism. It would also make clear, once and for all, that this reform is not in any way motivated by racial considerations.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. When the European Ministers met yesterday, we set in hand the formation of a working group to study the sort of problems that he mentioned. We all tend to think of these matters in terms of our own circumstances, but in fact there is hardly a country in Europe that, in different ways, is not feeling the pressures to which Britain has had to respond.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Home Secretary recall that soon after he was appointed I wrote to him suggesting that he visited Heathrow to witness the delays and difficulties? Had he done so, he would have recognised what the rest of us recognised a long time ago —that the delays and difficulties could be overcome by the appointment of more immigration officers, and more interpreters and the provision of better accommodation. Indeed, that could have been done for a fraction of the £14 million a year that the visa system will cost.
Does not the Home Secretary understand that the objection to the visa system as being racist flows from the fact that white South Africans, Americans and Australians are not required to have visas to come to Britain for a holiday, but Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis who wish to come here on holiday are so required? That is why the measure is seen as a racist and offensive move. It is doubly offensive that the Government sought to introduce it when this House was in recess and therefore unable to debate it, still less to approve it.

Mr. Hurd: Visitors from the Caribbean do not require visas in most cases, while visitors from eastern Europe do require visas in most cases. Will the hon. Gentleman please look at the list to which I have referred, as he will then realise the nonsense of his remarks?
I have visited terminal 3 and the immigration control at Heathrow, although not specifically in response to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He knows as well as I know that it is nonsense to argue that the problem could be solved by increasing staff, building new detention centres and employing more interpreters. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency post bag, the problem is one of occasional surges. They have occurred at various times during the past few years, and unless we staff up at Heathrow to an incredible and wasteful extent we would still have the pressures which, at particular times, make the system unworkable. Therefore, the more we consider the problems to which the recently buried system gave rise, the more sensible it seems to exercise a judgment overseas and not at the airport.

Sir Reginald Eyre: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is right to move to reduce the chaos that has existed at Heathrow airport in recent months? Does he appreciate that the visa system will be of advantage to Birmingham families and to visitors from the countries referred to because of the certainty that will exist, providing that my right hon. Friend can ensure that emergency cases relating to bereavements or illness, for example, are dealt with efficiently?

Mr. Hurd: There must, of course, be scope for dealing with emergency cases speedily, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has that in mind. My hon. Friend, who speaks from long experience, has it exactly right. One of the groups which has suffered most from occasional pressures at Heathrow has comprised the friends and relatives of bona fide visitors to this country from the sub-continent. This group has had to wrestle with uncertainty and delay, and the problem of Members' representations. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What problems?"] I hope that as the new system settles down those who comprise this group will find that they are among the chief beneficiaries.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is it not appalling that the reason given for the introduction of the policy that the Home Secretary is seeking to defend today lies precisely with the policy and practice of the Home Office? Of almost 500,000 visitors in 1985, there were only 182 eventual overstayers.
Is it not the case that masquerading as expressions of fact are expressions of opinion? For instance, it is said that there has been no change in the practice of immigration officers. We have no proof of that and nor can such proof be adduced. The Home Secretary has said that temporary admission was a risk to control. Again, that is an expression of opinion and not of fact. He has said that the recent increase in the number of immigrants from the subcontinent was the result of a move to take advantage of the previous system. Again, that is an expression of opinion.
Has not the change in policy, which will be so divisive to communities in urban areas, been caused by the Home Secretary's own policy, which he is now seeking to be confirmed by his expressions of opinion?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are those on the Opposition Benches who will not accept that a policy is justified by what other countries do to us? It seems appalling that fellow members of the Commonwealth are not allowed into Britain when representatives of South Africa are.

Mr. Hurd: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. The number of absconders is substantially higher than he stated, and it has been growing. At terminal 3, it was 255 in 1985 and 430 in the year to June 1986. The number of absconders would have been substantially greater if we had not had the detention arrangements which the Opposition have criticised continually. If we had followed their advice and given temporary admission to everyone who came to Britain as a visitor, I have no doubt that the absconder figures would be substantially greater.
I believe that the arrangements which we have made will, as they settle down, prove to be of major benefit to bona fide travellers, who represent more than 90 per cent. of those who arrive from all the five countries which I have mentioned. Those who suffer from them will be only those


who try to take advantage of the arrangements to sneak in for other purposes and those on the Opposition Benches who prefer a system of immigration control which is feeble and cosmetic.

Mr. Michael Mates: Will my right hon. Friend be reassured of the rightness of his decision to curb this random activity by hon. Members? May I remind him that not two weeks ago, having received a representation to put a stop on a deportation and having considered it most closely and declined to intervene, the Leader of the Opposition's office was on to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office within an hour demanding that action be taken without having made any checks on the validity of the representation? Is not this exactly the sort of misuse to which my right hon. Friend is now trying to put a stop?

Mr. Hurd: I think that all right hon. and hon. Members have had difficulty in using the stop facility. They have had difficulty in judging when to impose a stop and when not. There was a justification for the facility — the unique ability of an hon. Member to change an administrative decision—when immigration officers at Heathrow were making judgments on the worth of stories, which obviously were value judgments. In those circumstances, there was a reason for having a unique facility. In the majority of instances that will no longer be the position. The judgment will be made overseas, and there will be the right of appeal against it. At Heathrow the question will be whether a person has arrived with a visa. That will change the entire situation as far as the House is concerned.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Despite the gloss that the Home Secretary has put on this issue, he must be aware that in a multiracial area such as Brent, South, where 50 per cent. of the population is black, the new system will be seen as racist. This will be a great blow to the passive integration that we have secured over a period. Why have relatives of some of my constituents been put into prison at Leamington? Is he aware that if a person has been in prison, despite the fact that no crime has been committed, the family will be aware for ever after that the individual has been in prison? Was there no other accommodation available apart from that at Moreton?

Mr. Hurd: If a measure, regardless of the merits of it, is described by enough people as racist, there will be those who believe that for a time. I believe that as the system operates that belief will subside and will be shown to be nonsense.
I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the circumstances of detention. There are now between 80 and 90 Asians currently detained, some in a detention centre and some in a youth custody centre. All of them are there because right hon. and hon. Members have imposed a stop. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who are in that position will make their representations quickly so that these cases can be properly determined.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome some reduction in our duties in asking for a stop order to be made when we have no means of checking satisfactorily the facts that are put

to us? We realise that when we make representations they must inevitably on occasion lead to overstaying and evasion of the Immigration Act.

Mr. Hurd: I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have found it extremely difficult to judge when to exercise a unique right which has been theirs. When we debate the matter, as we obviously should, we shall have some further examples and illustrations to give and to make on how difficult things have become, and the House will then make up its mind.

Mr. Dave Nellist: If the Home Secretary had spent much of the past nine or 10 days at Heathrow, as many hundreds of Asian families have, perhaps he would not be so complacent. If he had spent five of those days constantly speaking to his office over the telephone trying to ascertain whether his constituents' relatives were being held in some of the places to which he has referred, again perhaps he would not be so complacent. Perhaps then, like families in Coventry, he would have recognised this apartheid in tourism to be the racist measure that it is.
Why are the Government using this racist card unless they are worried about their prospects over the next few months or unless they are trying to support the campaign of the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, the Star and The Sun? What about compensation for the loss of earnings, for accommodation costs and the cost of petrol to travel up and down the motorways over the past 10 days that have been incurred by families who have been so worried about their relatives that they have turned up at Heathrow every day? When will the Home Office cough up and compensate these families?

Mr. Hurd: Without knowing it, the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for abolishing the system which we have just demolished. It is partly because of the inconvenience to sponsors and relatives in Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) has said, that the present system is open to criticism. It is precisely because neither my hon. Friend nor I is not in the least complacent about the way in which the system has worked with increasing difficulty over the past year or so, despite the efforts of the immigration service, that we have changed the system.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most reasonable people of all races will think that the visa scheme is a good scheme? Why is it necessary, with the visa scheme, to retain the Member of Parliament stop system? Apart from the fact that an hon. Member cannot really judge a case, when he is faced with a problem and rings an immigration officer at Heathrow, the immigration officer has no idea whether he is a Member of Parliament or not. Surely it is high time that the stop system ceased.

Mr. Hurd: There is a lot in what my hon. Friend has said. When he considers the change in the guidelines which we shall table, I think that he will satisfied with the outcome.

Mr. Eric Deakins: How do the Government expect to create a multiracial society when they continue to discriminate on racial lines against the relatives and friends of many of their citizens of non-white origin?

Mr. Hurd: There is a major difference between the Opposition and the Government in that respect. I am absolutely convinced, as I have been for many years, that we shall not get harmony in our cities or good race relations in constituencies such as that of the hon. Gentleman unless people feel that there is firm but fair immigration control. The Labour party, in all its policy pronouncements, especially those of the Leader of the Opposition in his irresponsible statements in India, has opted for the repeal of the immigration legislation. The right hon. Gentleman, quite foolishly, has committed the Labour party to returning to a non-visa system. Labour Members seek to build, in their own minds, a control which is simply cosmetic and which would have so many holes in it that it would not serve any useful purpose. Instead of being a recipe for harmony in our cities, it is a recipe for greater tension and more bitter feeling.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was in Colombo last week and that I asked of Sri Lankans whether the visa control system, which has been in force for some months, was working to their satisfaction? The answer I received from Tamils, Sri Lankans and other members of the community was that it was working perfectly well. Is that not a portent for the workings of the system in Bangladesh, India and other countries that have been mentioned?

Mr. Hurd: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. More than a year ago we had to impose visas rather suddenly on visitors from Sri Lanka. The system has settled down satisfactorily since then. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation of that.

Mr. John Fraser: What practice will the Home Secretary adopt for people coming to Britain to seek political asylum who, by their nature, will not have a visa? Is the Home Secretary aware of the immense practical difficulties for students from west Africa who quite properly come here as visitors to fix up their colleges and from whom we earn millions of pounds in foreign exchange? Will the Home Secretary be relatively generous on the issue of entry certificates for visas for students who can then convert them to full-time student visas when they arrive in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hurd: My announcement does not affect our obligations as regards asylum. I shall look into the point about students. Only two of the five countries are in west Africa. People must be able to show—I am sure that in the majority of cases, students or not, they will be able to do so—that they are bona fide visitors. I shall consider whether there are any particular problems regarding Ghana and Nigeria. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press his point, I shall be grateful for details.

Sir Dudley Smith: Surely there can be no question about the requirement of visas for foreign visitors when countries as far apart as the United States and Bangladesh demand them for our citizens. I add my plea to those of my colleagues who feel that the system should be extended to all countries outside Europe. Fully supportive of my right hon. Friend, I ask him whether he has a rough idea of how long it will take to process ordinary visas on the sub-continent.

Mr. Hurd: I think that it is too early to say. For the reason that I gave in answer to one of my hon. Friends, there must be a procedure for dealing quickly with urgent

applications. I believe that some of the press stories about the length of the time that will be taken are greatly exaggerated. Not all applications will have to be dealt with by way of interview. It should be possible to deal with many by post. There will be problems as we shift from one system to another. My right hon. and learned Friend, with my support, has increased the staff available. I believe that there is a good chance of the system settling down with delays that do not go beyond those which most people encounter in making other arrangements for a journey.

Mr. Terry Davis: Does the country of origin depend on someone's passport or the country from which the journey began?

Mr. Hurd: It depends on a person's passport. As I have said, the five countries were chosen because they were the five countries in which there was a still small but growing minority of people who presented themselves as visitors but about whose bone fides as visitors there was doubt.

Mr. John Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of visas will be a major benefit to all bona fide visitors, and it is only those with whom we should concern ourselves; that the maintenance of firm and fair immigration control is in the interests of all our constituents, especially those in the ethnic minority communities; and that the promises of the Opposition parties to remove immigration control threatens the excellent community relations that are enjoyed in Slough and most other towns in this country?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that what occurred last week at Heathrow airport illustrated the sheer incompetence and hysteria of Government policy on this matter, and that the misleading impression was given by the Government, and certainly by the Tory press, that people who arrived during those few days came here for settlement when that was clearly not the case? Why should the right of hon. Members to take up matters on behalf of their constituents be taken away, even if it displeases some immigration officers at Heathrow? If our constituents, despite what is being introduced, want us to take up matters concerning relatives and friends, why should we not be in a position to do so in the same way as we take up issues concerning housing, supplementary benefit, and so on? Our rights should be protected, or we shall resist what the Home Secretary has just stated.

Mr. Hurd: If the Government's proposals are accepted, the hon. Member will be in exactly the same position as regards immigration cases as he is as regards housing and social service cases. If the House approves our proposals, he will not be able to exercise what is a unique facility and change an administrative decision before his representations are considered. If an hon. Member writes to a council and suggests that somebody deserves a council house, that person is not given a council house while the hon. Member's representations are considered. That is the difference. There is no way in which we should diminish the right of hon. Members to make representations. What we are simply saying is that, in the new circumstances, we need new procedures and that the automatic stop exercised at the port of entry is no longer appropriate.
The hon. Member's view of what happened over the past few days is quite different from mine. It is clear to me


that what we saw was the last throes of a system that had ceased to work. It was not the first time that that system had come under pressure. It came under pressure in the spring and summer of last year, the summer of this year, and again last week.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Apart from the manifestly good sense of the proposal, is it not much kinder, more considerate and more humane that genuine visitors should know, before they leave their country, that when they get here there will he no hassle? Will not the measure cut out much of the criminality that goes on in countries with the bogus sale of passages? Is not the synthetic indignation of the Opposition an indication that they care more about those who are not genuine visitors than those who are?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. and learned Friend is right. One of the bad features of the system which we have changed was the opening it gave to unscrupulous travel operators in the sub-continent to fill young people with bad advice as to what would happen at Heathrow, with results with which all right hon. and hon. Members are familiar. That is one of the bad features which we have done away with.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Are not young men just as eligible for admission as visitors as any other group? Is it not likely that the large number of those who turned up recently at Heathrow were there simply because they knew and their relatives knew that, once the introduction of the visa system had been accomplished, they were the people least likely to be allowed entry?

Mr. Hurd: Of course, there is no reason why young men should not come here as visitors. What staggers belief is that such a large number—several hundred young men from the sub-continent — should decide that the third week in October was the time to make the visit. I believe from the inquiries which are being made that among those people—not the lot—were a large number who would have come anyway in coming months, hoping to take advantage of the old system. When they realised that the old system was going to change, they thought that they would try it on straight away.

Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the humiliating and degrading scenes to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred in a staggeringly inappropriate question are the products of the present system? Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who have urged constantly upon him that he introduce a system that avoids precisely that humiliation and those degrading scenes are delighted that he has done so and that we now look forward to enabling bona fide visitors to this country to enter without any discrimination applying to them on the basis of their counry of origin—entirely as all hon. Members would wish?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I have been rather impressed, despite all the obfuscation, at the number of people from the ethnic minorities who, in one way or another, made that point to us in the past week.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a debate later on this matter. I have received no fewer than five applications under Standing Order No. 10 and there is also a ten-minute Bill on the Order Paper. If hon Members will look at the provisional selection of amendments on the Bill,

they will see that we have a very long day ahead of us. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.30 pm, but then, I am afraid, we must move on.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us view the introduction of visas with deep concern and apprehension, and a little suspicion. perhaps because it applies only to coloured people? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the staff at the office of the Minister of State—the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) — the thanks of those who have had this task for the courteous and helpful manner in which they have always dealt with our telephone calls and inquiries? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to return to the House when the system has been working for a few weeks to clear up many of our concerns and the questions which he has not been able to answer this afternoon— for example, what will happen in an emergency and what will happen to students? Will he undertake to make a further statement when the scheme has been working for a few weeks?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has tackled this matter and especially For his thanks, which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be glad to pass on to his staff. Of course the House will want to keep this matter under its eagle eye. We can do better than the hon. Gentleman suggested. We clearly need to have a debate earlier than he suggested to deal with those questions, especially representations by hon. Members. Thereafter, let us see how we get on. The House will certainly want to be kept informed.

Mr. John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend understand that his statement will be widely welcomed by all sections of opinion? Will he disregard the Opposition's protests, which are not supported outside the House and which, I believe, are not supported by many ordinary Labour voters?

Mr. Hurd: After the fulminations of last week, I have been struck by the lack of real emotion on this subject felt by Labour Members, which bears out my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Home Secretary aware that at a well-attended public meeting called by the London borough of Newham there was unanimous opposition to and great resentment about the imposition of visas? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a correct and cheaper solution would have been to employ more immigration officers at Heathrow? Does he realise that this scheme will cause great hardship to thousands of relatives of my constituents who now fear that they will have to make long journeys and endure long waiting periods to obtain visas? What specific assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give on that last point? How long will people have to wait for their visas?

Mr. Hurd: So far, the average handling time in the subcontinent has been within the same day. We shall see how we get on. This shows that adequate preparations have been made. There will be a settling down period, but I should be genuinely disappointed if the hon. Gentleman were able in a few weeks' time to make a genuine complaint on that point.

Mr. William Shelton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he comment on the suggestion that those with visas might not be able to enter the country when they arrive?

Mr. Hurd: In all normal circumstances, the possession of a visa will bring about entry. The law does not actually guarantee that. It puts the legal duty on the immigration officer, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) knows. The whole point of the visa system, which will certainly operate in this way, is that normally in the overwhelming majority of cases the possession of a visa will bring about entry.

Mr. David Young: I thank the staff of the Department for being very helpful. If Ministers were half as helpful, we would not have our present problems. Is the criterion by which a visa is issued simply that a person is a genuine visitor or will this machinery be used, as machinery has been used in the past, to produce an unofficial quota system?

Mr. Hurd: The criteria will be exactly the same as in the past. There has been no alteration in the criteria or definition. The change will simply be that discussion will take place overseas and not here.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the visa system just introduced has been widely acclaimed because it is seen as just and fair to the genuine visitor while at the same time it combats illegal immigration, which many believe is often aided and abetted by Labour Members? Will my right hon. Friend pay particular tribute to many of my constituents who work in the immigration service at Heathrow airport who have been put under intolerable strain in the past two weeks and who have been working long hours in difficult circumstances?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is one reason why I specifically mentioned those officers in my statement. The views of those who have to operate the immigration service should not be decisive in the forming of policy, but I see nothing wrong in my hon. Friend or myself paying careful attention to what they say.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to his junior Ministers and his officials to treat visitors to Britain more humanely? Since last year, I have dealt with hundreds of cases, as Ministers know. I have been appalled at the way in which those visitors have been treated in the past two or three weeks. They have been given inhuman treatment. They have not been allowed to know where their relatives are. They have been refused answers on the telephone. They have made numerous visits but still have not been given the information that they require. These visitors have had insults piled upon their injuries. Will the Home Secretary ensure that instructions are given so that these unfortunate people are treated in a much more humane and decent way? Will he ensure that they are given the information to which they are entitled and, more importantly, that Members of Parliament are given the information to which they are entitled about the whereabouts of the people on whose behalf they are trying to act?

Mr. Hurd: I reject the tone of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that, on reflection, he will regret some of the words he used. Of course, any system works better

when it is not under the extreme pressures which the former system has been under several times in the past two years. That is one reason why we have changed it.

Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order later.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: Will my right hon. Friend accept that most of the concerns of my Asian constituents derive partly from irresponsible scares put around by Opposition Members as to the length of time they will have to wait to get a visa and partly from the lack of information as to who needs a visa? Therefore, will he undertake to mount an extensive publicity campaign, particularly through the ethnic minority press, to reassure my constituents? They are now asking, for example, whether they need a visa if they have indefinite leave to remain. Will he undertake to review the appeal system because of the length of time it is currently taking to deal with appeals and the extra burden that the new system is bound to throw upon it?

Mr. Hurd: Obviously we have done our best to inform all the organisations in this country which might be interested and we will continue to do that because we have to clean up after statements which misrepresent the facts and reassure genuine travellers and their families. Let me look at my hon. Friend's point about appeals. Obviously there may be an increase in the number of appeals and the machinery may need to be strengthened to cope with them.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is the Home Secretary aware that the sheer machanics contradict the assurances he has given in regard to same day issue of visas, justice, equality and all the other aspects which he has mentioned? Is he aware that his own staff plus those in the Foreign Office have said that the extra burden amounts to at least 20,000 hours per week if each application is given only 10 minutes? Yet the right hon. Gentleman has just announced that only 39 additional staff are going overseas in order to deal with that extra burden. Is not the real reason for the policy to cut by half the number of visitors who are coming to this country?

Mr. Hurd: No. Indeed, that would be absurd given that the overwhelming majority—more than 90 per cent.—of visitors from the countries I have mentioned are clearly welcomed as bona fide visitors and there is no difficulty for them. I said—I do not wish to be misrepresented—that the record to date is of same day issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will do his best to ensure that the delay in obtaining visas, whether issued by post or after interview, will be kept to a minimum. That is why the staffs have been strengthened.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be widely welcomed throughout the country, and especially the assurances he has given on the length of time people will be kept waiting for visas? It will be unlike the position of 53-year-old Mr. Surendra Biswas of Middlesbrough, who has been waiting 14 weeks for the Indian embassy in this country to acknowledge the fact that he has applied for a visa to visit his parents in India.

Mr. Hurd: The House will be interested in that anecdote.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is completely misunderstanding the stop system if he


says that it changes an administrative decision? It does no such thing. It makes sure that no irrevocable action is taken while the decision is properly considered. If a visa is not accepted, as the Home Secretary says that it may not necessarily be, will the stop system operate? What will be the position of returning residents? They are in doubt about their position. Will they need visas? If they are not allowed in, will the stop system operate on their behalf? What about somebody with an urgent family emergency, for example, with news of the impending death of a relative while the embassy is closed at the weekend? Will they be able to get on a plane, come here and make contact with their relatives if they are stopped and if there is a prospect of their being returned? People need to know. These are human predicaments.

Mr. Hurd: The specific questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman are perfectly reasonable. I can confirm that returning residents will be exempt from visa requirements. There will be exceptional cases which the House will want to discuss when we debate the guidelines. Members will naturally want to make representations because there will be cases where, in spite of the visa system, for special reasons it will be for the immigration officer to make a value judgment. Those are the sort of detailed but necessary points that the House will want to discuss, and we will want to put our detailed proposals to the House. I hope that debate can be arranged quickly.

Mr. Speaker: I will now take the point of order from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) if he wishes to raise it.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my observations, the Home Secretary said that I would be sorry about raising the questions that I raised. I want to know whether the Home Secretary was making a threat.

Mr. Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was capable of second thoughts.

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that a statement of this importance on visas is not complete without a question from an hon. Member from the county or city of Leicester where the biggest impact of Asian immigrants has been felt recently? It might complete the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, if you were to extend the time for questions in order to enable at least one hon. Member from Leicester to put a question to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, It is extremely difficult for the Chair when such a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. All I can say is that those hon. Members who are unable to put a question on the statement are always given priority when the matter is subsequently raised. I keep careful lists on these matters.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was called, of course.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You asked hon. Members to restrict their questions because of the debate intimated by the Home Secretary. Are you in possession of any information to show that the debate will take place before the 23 October introduction of further visa restrictions on Ghanaian nationals, otherwise the problems experienced today in attempting to raise points could be repeated?

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, the Home Secretary said that he would seek to ensure that we had a debate before the House prorogued.

Lamb (Radiation)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the persistent effect of radiation on agriculture in Gwynedd and elsewhere.
This matter is specific because the problems are defined in specific areas in Gwynedd, north-west England and the south of Scotland and they relate to specific farms. The problem is not one of a danger to the general public from eating lamb. Indeed, I should like to make it clear that there is no danger to the general public because the lamb reaching the shops has been subject to the tight screening procedures that take place.
The matter is important because the effects of radiation are still running at an alarmingly high level. Readings in my county of Gwynedd this month have shown levels of radioactivity in lamb running at 4,000 bq/kg. That is four times higher than the Government's own alarm level and it will take six to nine months for the level of radiation to decay to a level that will allow the lifting of the ban.
Readings of radiation in silage during the Recess have shown a level as much as five times higher than that which is acceptable in fodder given to milk cows. However, the Government have given the go-ahead for the silage to be used without any certainty of testing to show that there are no genetic problems or danger to the animals.
The matter is also important because the compensation provisions brought forward by the Government, while having helped some farmers very much indeed, remain a matter of rough justice. There are massive loopholes, especially for those farmers who waited over three weeks after the end of the ban before marketing, which led them into extreme cash flow problems.
The matter is urgent because many hill farmers in Gwynedd are facing the prospect of a whole winter without the ban being lifted. They have grave worries about the genetic effects on animals. They have severe cash flow problems and many are wondering whether it is Chernobyl that caused this radiation or whether the sources are nearer home. The matter is of great anxiety to my constituents, who have waited all through the summer recess for an opportunity for these points to be raised in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the persistent effect of radiation on agriculture in Gwynedd and elsewhere.
I fully appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but he knows that my only duty is to decide whether this matter should take precedence over the business set down for today. I much regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Bedford Commercial Vehicles

Mr. David Madel: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement last month by Bedford Commercial Vehicles that it was to phase out the production of its medium and heavy duty trucks with the result of a reduction in the work force of 1,450 people spread between Dunstable and Luton.
The matter is urgent because it follows an earlier announcement by General Motors of hundreds of other job losses as a result of rationalisation at the Luton and Dunstable plants. This not only causes a further shrinking of Bedfordshire's manufacturing base, but will have a serious effect on other local businesses as well as on suppliers of and dealers in Bedford commercial vehicles throughout the country.
The matter is also urgent and should have precedence because when a blow to employment of this magnitude occurs in an area which, since the war, has provided thousands of jobs in manufacturing industry, the House should abandon other business and allow a debate on this matter, given the serious effects that it will have on employment in Bedfordshire and other parts of the country.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement last month by Bedford Commercial Vehicles that it was to phase out the production of its medium and heavy duty trucks with the result of a reduction in the work force of 1,450 people spread between Dunstable and Luton.
Again, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his concern for his constituents, but I regret that I have to give the same answer that I gave before, which is that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Immigration Rules

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement of change in the immigration rules, Cmnd. 9914, and the rights of Members.
The exchanges that have taken place this afternoon on the statement made by the Home Secretary illustrate vividly the widespread concern in the House at the Government decision made earlier this month to introduce visas for citizens of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh wishing to visit this country. In the view of many, that decision was racist, will do severe damage to community relations in many areas in Britain and will damage already poor relations between Britain and Commonwalth countries. I am sure that many of us were concerned to hear Prime Minister Gandhi condemn this decision as "racist" and "very sad".
The nationals of the countries concerned very much resent that they are now required to obtain visas to visit this country, and it is important that we should remember that most people concerned in this are visitors. It is also important to remember that this decision has effectively abolished the right of children of British citizens to be able to come to this country and to claim the right of entry, and if refused to remain in this country pending appeal. It is also creating difficulties for students because now they will be given visas to come to this country only if they possess a letter of acceptance from a college admitting them to a course of study. It is also causing deep resentment among nationals of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh who have lived in this country for many years — many of them have lived in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, for many years — and who are now required to have a visa

exemption stamp in their passport if, on the advice of the Home Secretary, they are to avoid difficulties when they return to this country. We, as their representatives, regret that they have to go to the time, trouble and inconvenience of obtaining that stamp.
The Government's policy is clearly aimed at stopping a number of black and Asian people from being able to visit this country and preventing a number of Members of Parliament from assisting their constituents when their relatives and friends experience difficulties in being admitted to the country. The Home Secretary has said that a debate will be held. If you are in difficulty in agreeing my application, Mr. Speaker, I ask you in the name of Lord Mowbray-King and in the spirit of the words that you uttered earlier about the importance of the office that you hold concerning the rights of Members, to put pressure on the Government to ensure that the debate will be a full debate, and not a late night hour and a half on a Thursday night, which will deny all of us the opportunity to put our case against this move.
It should be a debate in which the Government are called to the House to account for their actions We can quiz them on their decisions and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had more than three minutes.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement of change in the immigration rules, Cmnd. 9914, and the rights of Members.
I have to decide whether this matter should have precedence over the orders set down for today. I regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit the hon. Gentleman's application to the House.

British Leyland

Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the major job losses in Coventry because of privatisation from British Leyland.
Coventry Climax, a large firm in Coventry South-East, went into receivership three weeks ago, putting 900 jobs at risk. Two weeks ago the receivers, Price Waterhouse, axed 170 of those jobs, which added to the 200 jobs lost in July. The scale and impact of those redundancies—brown envelopes for the sack, white envelope for a reprieve — is something with which we are becoming depressingly familiar in Coventry, a city that has lost 62,000 manufacturing jobs in the past 10 years.
The specific need for the debate flows from the flood of promises made by successive Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry to the House on the benefits of privatisation, particularly with regard to British Leyland, one of the largest employers in Coventry, which has suffered a haemorrhaging of jobs. Another part of British Leyland, Self-Changing Gears, which was privatised through the back door three months ago without any announcement in the House, cut 20 per cent. of its jobs two weeks ago. This is despite a letter from the managing director speaking about the company being
backed by the resources of a major international company".
The then Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry told me in a written answer that privatisation was in
the best long-term interest of the company." — [Official Report, 14 May 1986; Vol 97, c. 481.]
The matter is important because not only will the debate register the anger of working people in our city against the callous indifference of the Goernment, it will ask one or two searching questions about the dubious financial practices at Climax in recent years. Five years ago it was privatised by British Leyland and since then not

one penny has been paid to British Leyland. Is it a coincidence that, six weeks before the first £1·6 million was due for the purchase of that company, those who bought it packed up and ran, and handed the company over to a receiver?
Are we witnessing the break-up of Climax? Is it a coincidence that Price Waterhouse is sending out three memoranda of purchase for parts, spares, engines and trucks to prospective purchasers? Is it breaking up that firm and putting the 900 jobs at risk?
If you were to grant a debate, Mr. Speaker, that would give me the opportunity to put forward the only solution to the problems affecting Alvis, Jaguar, Self-Changing Gears and Climax since their privatisation. That solution is the re-nationalisation of those firms, the restoration of manning levels and the offer of jobs to the redundant workers and those who have been sacked.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to respect the feelings and the wishes of the families in Coventry who have lost their jobs in the past three months because of the Government, and at least grant us a debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing an important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the major job losses in Coventry due to privatisation from British Leyland.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find other ways of bringing this matter before the House, because I have to rule that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Rate Support Grants Act 1986
2. Western Isles Islands Council (Berneray Harbour) Order Confirmation Act 1986.

Unborn Children (Protection) (No. 2) Bill

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation; and to make additional provision in relation thereto.
Eighteen months ago, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) introduced the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. It is a great privilege for me this afternoon to follow such a distinguished and respected Member of this House. I cannot match his eloquence, but I can perhaps match his strength of feeling.
During the past 20 years, the House has been instrumental in passing a series of laws which have devastated and, in some respects, barbarised our society. All attempts to fight back have been blocked by the use of parliamentary procedure accompanied by jingoistic rhetoric in which precisely the same formula is used in statement after statement. Every Bill which attempts to reverse this so-called permissive legislation is described as ill thought out or hastily drafted. All manner of sinister motives or abuses are outlined.
Having sat through a number of debates on ethical issues, I sometimes feel as though precisely the same statements and press releases are used with simply the headlines and nouns changed to alternate between abortion, pornography, sex education and the use of the embryonic human being as a guinea pig. The whole matter would be laughable were it not for the fact that the tactics none the less succeed in ensuring that the will of Parliament is thwarted by the minority.
Britain must be the only country in the western world in which Bills which have a huge majority do not reach the statute book because of the tactics of the minority. When the right hon. Member for South Down presented the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill it was given a Second Reading by 238 votes to 66. There is still a huge majority in the House and elsewhere in favour of legislation which will protect the human embryo from non-therapeutic experiments. However, when I presented the measure as a private Member's Bill earlier this year, it soon became obvious to me and to the other supporters of the Bill that our opponents were determined that there would not be a debate, let alone a vote, on the subject.
We have no intention of seeing democracy baulked any longer, and we are determined today, even at this late stage in the parliamentary year, to have a vote to show the British public that the majority in the House is concerned to see something done to protect the human embryo. Any party or Government which pays lip service to democracy has a duty to defend democracy and to protect the House and the country from campaigns which seek to obscure the truth about what is happening.
It is fair to say that the Government set up the Warnock committee when they recognised the dangers of the developments in embryology in an attempt to clarify the position. The Government deserve to be congratulated on that. But let us be frank. All the members of the Warnock committee admitted at the outset that they favoured the use of the human embryo for experiments. However, even they were forced to admit that the human embryo is undeniably a member of the human species. Page 65 of the report states:
From the moment of fertilisation there is no particular part of the development process which is more important than

another; all are part of a continuous process and unless each stage takes place normally, at the correct time, and in the correct sequence, further development will cease. Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive.
The report of the Australian Senate Select Committee on human embryo experimentation states:
In this situation prudence dictates that, until the contrary is demonstrated 'beyond reasonable doubt ' … the embryo of the human species should be regarded as if it were a human subject for the purposes of biomedical ethics.
Every declaration of medical ethics — be it the Hippocratic oath or the updated declaration of Geneva —categorically states:
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception: even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
The declaration of Helsinki, adoped by the 18th World Medical Assembly in 1975, to provide guidelines for doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects, states:
In research on man, the interests of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject.
Yet what do we witness happening in this country? Scientists can carry out open-ended research on embryonic human beings with no legal upper limit. Even the Warnock committee urged that a legal limit of 14 days should be imposed. Every argument favouring the use of the embryonic human being for experimentation includes a rosy picture of the benefits for society if only we allowed scientists freedom. There would be cures for cancer and muscular dystrophy. According to some of the world's most outstanding scientists in this area, these claims are highly suspect, if not downright ridiculous. In finding cures for genetic diseases by gene manipulation, one has to be able to assess the effect on the target tissue, which in no case is present by 14 days — the limit recommended by Warnock and supported by some members of the Medical Research Council.
Moreover, I stress that those of us who oppose the destruction of unborn children, at all stages, for reasons of handicap, are at least equally concerned to find cures for genetic diseases as are those who oppose us. Having failed to convince the public with their justifications for using the embryo, scientists have now resorted to the invention of a new word — "the pre-embryo" — to describe the human who has not yet implanted in his or her mother's womb, albeit that they cannot deny that from the moment of conception it is an individual and genetically unique human which, if safeguarded, will develop its full potential just as a new-born baby will.
The term "pre-embryo" is a Humpty Dumpty word. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, how in "Alice in Wonderland", Humpty Dumpty used all manner of words wrongly, justifying himself by claiming, "I pay 'em extra". The term is used persistently by the Medical Research Council, I regret to say, to diminish the status of the newly conceived embryo in the minds of the public and so justify its actions.
However, David Davies, the former editor of Nature magazine and a member of the Warnock committee—who is certainly not sympathetic to my case—stated in Nature on 20 March 1986 that the term "pre-embryo" was never used or put before the Warnock committee, and he added that the scientists using the term "pre-embryo" were
manipulating words to polarise an ethical discussion.


I have tried to address myself to criticisms made by opponents of the Bill and to show that we are beyond doubt talking about a human being when we refer to an embryo of the human species and that cures for genetic diseases will not be forthcoming from experimenting on human embryos.
The other major claim made by the opponents to the Bill is that it will put an end to in vitro fertilisation and prevent an infertile couple from having a much-wanted child. That is not the intention of the Bill, nor would it be its effect. Last year the right hon. Member for South Down said that the Bill does not in any way interfere with the procedures which are at present in use for enabling a woman, who could not otherwise do so, to bear a child. The Bill was deliberately and carefully drawn so as not to interfere with those procedures, and that view was confirmed by the Department of Health and Social Security. I deeply regret that infertile couples have been worried by some of the claims made about the Bill.
The use of the embryonic human being is without doubt one of the most dangerous developments facing humanity this century. We in this House have a duty to protect society and humanity. The consequences of doing nothing will be far-reaching. The Bill in no way restricts existing IVF procedures and it does nothing to prevent the discovery of cures for genetic diseases, but it gives the human embryo the right to the legal protection that the rest of us enjoy. It has the support of many organisations, from the Salvation Army to the Royal College of Nursing and Women for Women, and it has widespread support throughout the country. We have an opportunity to give a moral lead to the world. Passing the Bill today would be a first step. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish briefly to oppose the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on gaining time for a ten-minute Bill, but I regret that I cannot agree with the proposals that he has put forward because they fly in the face of the vast majority of medical opinion not only in this country but in all countries. The Fertility Society of America has followed the recommendations of the Warnock committee, and those recommendations have also been accepted in Australia, where a great deal of work has been done. Having visited Japan last week, I can also report that the Japanese Academy of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also approves the work and recommendations of the Warnock committee in seeking to continue research into the causes of infertility and congenital handicap and to provide treatment for those who suffer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn speaks for a vociferous minority fomented by religious doubters, but he flies in the face of majority public opinion which has been expressed clearly in favour of human embryo research aimed at prevention of congenital handicap. I speak today for the silent minority who suffer grievous personal hardship through problems of infertility or inherited disorders. One in 50 of all children born suffers from a congenital handicap. I wish to speak especially for the forgotten minority of children so handicapped that their parents are unable to care for them—children who are therefore in institutional care. It is surprising that those

who express so much concern for the human embryo have not been able to band together to offer fostering or adoptive homes for those children so deserving of parental love and care, as children born with such grievous handicaps should surely have even more parental devotion and loving care than normal children.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has spoken of the dignity of man and his instinctive repugnance for research, but what dignity is there for those handicapped children for whom society is unable to care as it should? God gave us heads that we should use them and not bury them in the sand. Religious objections have been mentioned, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn should remember that the Church of England Synod rejected a motion calling for a ban on research. Father John Mahoney, president of the Catholic Theological Association, has written an excellent book on "Bioethics and Belief". I am sorry that Cardinal Hume has had to withdraw his imprimatur, showing the depth of division within the Catholic church.
Of course there should be limits. The Warnock committee put forward strict guidelines and called for a statutory licensing authority. In the absence of legislation, a voluntary licensing authority — a uniquely British institution—has been set up, composed of eminent lay members and representatives from the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. That authority, which is the envy of the world, has visited 24 IVF establishments in this country and its work has been praised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I hope that Members on both sides will join my right hon. Friend in praising its work in authorising research in this country.
No research means no test-tube babies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn seems to think that test-tube babies can be produced without research. This country leads the world in pioneering research in this area. The establishment at Bourne hall has now announced the thousandth successful pregnancy. As there have been only 3,000 worldwide, that shows the extent of our lead in this area. Does my hon. Friend wish our research teams to have to go abroad to continue their work, which is so urgently needed to improve the success rate of IVF, currently only about 20 per cent., and to discover possible methods of preventing congenital handicap through embryonic biopsy? My hon. Friend seems unaware of the significance of recent developments in genetic diagnosis for cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy.
I thank the 150 right hon. and hon. Members who supported my early-day motion 32 on the prevention of congenital handicap, drawing attention to the launching of the Progress group which brings together 41 organisations concerned with medical charity work and medical work generally which support the need for further research.
I ask the House to reject the Bill and to await the Government legislation that has been promised as soon as possible and which I hope will be along the lines of the Warnock committee's recommendations.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nominations of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 129.

Division No. 281]
[5.10 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ground, Patrick


Aitken, Jonathan
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Alton, David
Hannam,John


Amess, David
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Ancram, Michael
Harris, David


Arnold, Tom
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Ashby, David
Harvey, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hawksley, Warren


Atkinson. David (B'm'th E)
Hayes, J.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hayward, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Heddle, John


Bendall, Vivian
Henderson, Barry


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Hill, James


Benyon, William
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Best, Keith
Holt, Richard


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hordern, Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howard, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Blackburn, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Irving, Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jessel, Toby


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bright, Graham
Kennedy, Charles


Bruinvels, Peter
Key, Robert


Budgen, Nick
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Burt, Alistair
Lambie, David


Butterfill, John
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cash, William
Lang, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Latham, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Churchill, W. S.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lightbown, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lilley, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(Bristol S)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Craigen, J. M.
Macfarlane, Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McGuire, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dicks, Terry
Maclean, David John


Dixon, Donald
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
McNamara, Kevin


Dover, Den
McQuarrie, Albert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Robert
Malone, Gerald


Durant, Tony
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evennett, David
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Martin, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Favell, Anthony
Mather, Carol


Fenner. Mrs Peggy
Maude, Hon Francis


Fletcher, Alexander
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Merchant, Piers


Fry, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Gale, Roger
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Galley, Roy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Gow, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon C.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mudd, David





Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Brien, William
Stokes, John


Onslow, Cranley
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Park, George
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Porter, Barry
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Portillo, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Tinn, James


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powley, John
Tracey, Richard


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Trotter, Neville


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waddington, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Rowlands, Ted
Watts, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
White, James


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Wilson, Gordon


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Woodall, Alec


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Woodcock, Michael


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Speed, Keith



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Mr. Kenneth Hind and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Ian Campbell.


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Paddy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Forth, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Freud, Clement


Barnett, Guy
Garrett, W. E.


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Cartwright, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clay, Robert
Jackson, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Critchley, Julian
John, Brynmor


Crouch, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Deakins, Eric
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Dormand, Jack
Maples, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Maxton, John


Dubs, Alfred
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Michie, William


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)






Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Needham, Richard
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Nellist, David
Sims, Roger


Nelson, Anthony
Skinner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Osborn, Sir John
Soley, Clive


Ottaway, Richard
Spencer, Derek


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Squire, Robin


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pavitt, Laurie
Straw, Jack


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Prescott, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Raffan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Raynsford, Nick
Wainwright, R.


Renton, Tim
Wareing, Robert


Rhodes James, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Welsh, Michael


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Sackville, Hon Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Ian Mikardo and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. David Amess, Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Peter Brunivels, Mr. Ian Campbell, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Michael Hancock, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. James White and Mrs. Ann Winterton.

UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION) (No. 2) BILL

Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation; and to make additional provision in relation thereto: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 October and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

Orders of the Day — Education Bill [Lords]

As amended [in the Standing Committee], further considered.

New Clause 38

School transport

'In section 55 of the 1944 Act (provision of transport and other facilities), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
(3) In considering whether or not they are required by subsection (1) above to make arrangements in relation to a particular pupil, the local education authority shall have regard (amongst other things) to the age of the pupil and the nature of the route, or alternative routes, which he could reasonably be expected to take.".'—[Mr. Dunn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following:
New clause 23— Choice of school and concessionary travel—
`(1) The duty imposed by section 6(2) of the 1980 Act that a local education authority and the governors of a school shall comply with a parental preference shall apply notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 3 (a) of that section where the choice of school involves travel from home to that school by the child of a greater distance than would be involved in travel to another school within the local education area.
(2) A child shall be entitled to concessionary travel for the journey to and from school notwithstanding the fact that the school is not the nearest school to his or her home, that child attends that school as a result of a preference expressed pursuant to section 6 of the 1980 Act.'.
New clause 24—Transport facilities—
'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 55 of the 1944 Act, a local education authority may establish arrangements for travel to and from school and payment of travelling expenses of any pupil in attendance at any school within the local authority area on the basis that each pupil will be required to pay a flat charge for contribution towards the cost of each journey.'.
New clause 25—Safe walking distance to school—
'At the end of section 39 of the 1944 Act, the following words shall be added—
Provided that no child shall be expected to walk to school on a route which is inadequately lit uses unmetalled roads or is in any other way hazardous." '.
New clause 31A—Safety in walking to school—
'At the end of section 39 of the 1944 Act the following words shall be added "provided that the local education authority shall have full regard to safety as well as distance when determiing that route.".'.
New clause 33—Transport facilities—
`Where the education authority, in any rural area, provides transport facilities there shall be a requirement that at least one adult supervisor he carried throughout the journey in addition to the driver.'.

Mr. Dunn: I am aware of the concern that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed about children's safety on their journeys between home and school. In recognition of this, and in response to the Law Lords' judgment, the Government have proposed a new


clause to clarify certain of the circumstances which a local authority must consider before determining whether transport arrangements are necessary. By making section 55 of the Education Act 1944 more specific we aim to ensure that local education authorities across the country exercise their duty consistently.
I understand that there has been some concern that it was not possible for the Government to consult the local authority associations, as we might have done. The House will know that the Government could take no action until the judgment was delivered in another place on 16 October. Consequently, I hope that the House will accept that we are grasping this opportunity to make a late change to the Bill in response to the Rogers judgment and to the views expressed in the House and outside by hon. Members. Clearly, until we knew what the judgment was to be, we could not have attempted a change in the law.
New clauses 23, 24 and 25 are all concerned in some way with school transport and concessionary travel. I shall be seeking to press the House not to accept those new clauses but I hope that the House will accept new clause 38 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Mark Fisher: We appreciate what the Under-Secretary said about the shortage of time since the Rogers judgment on 16 October, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not dispute that this is another instance of something being hastily tacked on to the Bill. We have had cause during the course of the Bill to complain about that.
The Under-Secretary said that he hopes that the new clause will clarify the situation and make more specific the duty on local education authorities. However, the new clause is surprisingly vague and we should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would amplify it. I was expecting him to say a little more in defence of the new clause and to explain the Government's reasoning.
As I understand it, the education authorities will not be much wiser unless they are far more versed in the law than my hon. Friends. The new clause says "have regard to", but it does not seem to place any obligation on local authorities and even that one proviso is weakened by the words "amongst other things". The Under-Secretary has not specified what other things the Government have in mind.
One of the things that should be taken into account is the age of the pupil and that is already covered by section 39(5) of 1 he Education Act 1944. The nature of the route, as the noble Lord Ackner made clear in his judgment, would appear to be irrelevant in coming to a decision.
In asking the House to support or understand their new clause the Government must make clear the terms of any circular that they will be sending out to local education authorities which informs them of their new obligations and also whether they will be asking those local education authorities to find ways to explain to all parents what their rights are as a result of the new clause.
Without some guidance from the Government about the terms of any circular which will clarify the change in the law and without some assurance that local education authorities will be obliged to pass on that explanation to parents, we shall remain unconvinced of the need for the new clause, and, indeed, the haste with which it is being introduced. We wait to hear more from the Government on that point.

Mr. Roy Galley: First, I warmly welcome new clause 38. Those of us who have expressed concern about various matters relating to school transport over the years are grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for bringing the new clause forward. Nevertheless, there are one or two points of concern relating to the new clause which link in with new clauses 23, 24 and 25 and which, in turn, range over potentially wider ground. I want to make some comment on those and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make some useful comments in response.
The concern which led to the tabling of new clause 23 relates essentially to parental choice. Section 6 of the Education Act 1980 laid a duty on local authorities to enable parents to express
a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child".
The local education authority and the governors must comply with that preference unless — it is a very big unless—
compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources".
There is the rub. In other words, there is not much choice and the local education authority's view of what is and is not efficient is paramount. The producer decides and if someone does not like it it is pretty tough. Some can have choice by paying twice, first in their taxes and secondly by going to a private school. Sometimes there is an element of choice in a particular local authority area and children may go some distance to a school, but the parent must pay for that transport. Some can afford to do so and some cannot. Choice depends very much on the ability to pay.
That brings me to a specific point relating to my constituency, but similar points have arisen in other parts of the country. In the Calderdale metropolitan borough council area we have grammar schools in the Halifax constituency and comprehensive schools in the Calder Valley constituency. Parents who wish to send their children to a grammar school but live in an area with comprehensive schools cannot do so unless they can afford the transport costs, which can be substantial in a local authority area that is 20 miles from end to end.
The same applies to parents who wish to send their children to a comprehensive school when they live in an area of selective education. The children must, according to the local education authority, go to the nearest suitable school, and what is suitable is decided not by ability or aptitude or choice but by the local bureaucracy.
If a child living just inside an area of comprehensive education wants to attend a grammar school and is suited by ability and aptitude to do so, he or she cannot unless the parents foot the bill for the transport and overcome a number of other hurdles placed in their way by the local education authority. Yet their friends living but a few hundred yards away may go to grammar school and perhaps receive a bus pass. That is grossly unfair and militates against good education. In the politically controlled system that we have, the bureaucrat is king.
Local education authorities have some discretion in whether to grant bus passes but so far that discretion is rarely used to improve parental choice and to give assistance with transport costs to relatively low income families to allow them to make a choice on behalf of their children, so easing the restrictions upon choice. Will new clause 38 allow — indeed, encourage — local education


authorities to use their discretion more widely, bearing in mind parental choice and the ability and aptitude of the child? I should be grateful for an assurance from my hon. Friend on that point.
One appreciates that this issue is the central dilemma of our education policy in that the consumer has little opportunity to influence events. We have taken some measures to overcome the problem, but we must go further. Until we grapple with the question of transport costs, there will not be the wide range of choice that the vast majority of people require.
We have given those who express a preference on religious grounds a wider range of choice without necessarily the requirement to pay extra and that is right. But we need to extend that principle to give people choice on educational grounds as well as on religious grounds. New clause 23 is an attempt to overcome that problem which has reference to the Halifax area and other parts of the country. I should be grateful to know from my hon. Friend the Minister whether new clause 38 goes any way towards meeting those concerns.
The financial and educational implications of new clause 23 may be very wide, which is why we have tabled new clause 24. Local education authority resources are bound to be strictly limited and it is obviously legitimate to argue that if further resources were available, assistance with transport costs to facilitate choice would not necessarily be the number one priority. That money might be well spent by allowing real choice and the consumer rather than the producer to determine what goes on in our schools and how the money is spent. But one must live with the financial realities. As new clause 24 suggests, a flat rate charging system could have a neutral effect on LEA budgets, instead of allowing free travel beyond the statutory limits set down in the Education Act 1944 and could provide no assistance in other cases. The new clause would institute, at the local education authority's discretion, a flat rate charging system for all children attending maintained schools in a local education authority area. The Minister may have some sympathy with that principle, and I hope that the Government are prepared to move in that direction in due course.
5.30 pm
Flat rate charging for school transport has long been considered by Governments of both parties. In 1973 a working party recommended it. In 1975 the Labour Government discussed a proposal. This Government against considered it in 1980. But the idea has been abandoned on each occasion because of the opposition of vested interests in local education authorities. This Government do not often bow to vested interests. Indeed, they quite rightly seem to take delight in taking on those vested interests in the national interest. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take on flat rate charging with, of course, some modifications that may lead to banding of charges for very short or long journeys and with especial reference to those on supplementary benefits, family credits, and the handicapped. Generally, it would be a fairer system for the majority and would allow greater choice for all when combined with new clause 23.
New clause 25 covers the same ground as the Government's new clause 38. The Government should be congratulated on having accepted the deep anxiety of

many parents throughout the country about the lack of any cognisance of safety in the rules relating to bus passes. But new clause 38 is not very specific about safety. My new clause 25 and new clause 31A make specific reference to safety and to non-hazardous routes. I would have been much happier if my hon. Friend the Minister had presented proposals which made specific reference to safety as a factor which the local education authority should take into account. There are occasions when the routes prescribed by local education authorities are isolated and dangerous because of traffic or possible attacks upon children. There are routes in my constituency and in many others which may just be feasible for an adult on a summer day but which are not feasible for a child on a dark winter's night. No reasonable parent would allow his child to walk such routes. Yet it is not always feasible for parents to accompany their children on walks to and from school. The Rogers case brought all those issues before the courts, the House of Lords and now this House.
I am worried that the Minister's proposal in clause 38 may not resolve all those difficulties. Will he assure us that where a hazard exists to children on a route, it will be the local education authority's duty to take into account the safety of a child walking that route? If my hon. Friend can allow some concession on the matters that I have raised, I shall withdraw those new clauses and not force them to a Division.

Mr. Clement Freud: I compliment the Minister on his fast reaction to the case. I am a co-signatory of new clause 25, and I believe that the words
which he could reasonably be expected to take
which supersede the previous "availability" are sufficient for any sane local education authority. No parent will be expected to take his child to school or to allow him to go on his own to school on a route which is as dangerous as many routes are in the rural constituencies.
I hope that the Minister will accept that everyone is angry about arbitrary limits such as two or three miles. It is extraordinarily easy for the Opposition to complain about finding a reasonable distance, but I am content with what is happening now. The House should be grateful to the Minister for his new clause. Even though it is yet another clause which was not previously in this hotchpotch of a Bill, I welcome it. But I hope that he will bear in mind that when routes are dangerous and transport on them must be provided, the money comes from the local education authority. Yet the LEAs are strapped for cash and are penalised for spending it. I hope that if exceptional circumstances arise, they will be met with exceptional generosity for those areas that need safe routes, that is, routes that one could reasonably expect children to take on their way to school.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) has clearly outlined the issues that still cause anxiety. I should like to place on record the continuing anxiety of those parents who have selected a religious-based education for their children, but who find their children attending schools of a different denomination, and, who therefore are segregated in the award of bus passes. During the past two or three years there have been many complaints about what is quite simply religious discrimination. Such discrimination is unjust, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address himself to that. I also wish to place on record my


thanks for the extremely courteous and sympathetic way in which my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to the representations of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and others during the recess and the manner in which he has responded to the anxieties expressed to us by many parents. I know that those parents will be grateful, and hon. Members should he grateful, to the Minister for the way in which he has responded.
I do not seek to press my amendment to a Division.

Mr. Richard Holt: Moorsholm is right on the Yorkshire moors, or at least it was in Yorkshire, until some bureaucrat decided to put it in Cleveland. If the children in Moorsholm were still under the North Yorkshire education authority, they would be provided with escorts on the buses, but because they are in Cleveland they are not. That is now a political hot potato, unfortunately based on the death last summer of an eight-year-old constituent. The Conservative Members in that area have been pressing for an amendment, or a voluntary submission, for an additional person by Cleveland education authority. At the relevant sub-committee that was carried by a combination of wise Conservative and Left-wing Labour members. However, at the full education committee, it was referred back for reconsideration. I am talking about one escort on one bus that goes into the middle of the North Yorkshire moors. As we all know, that area suffers from extremes of weather and in the winter conditions are often untenable. Nevertheless, parents rightly wait at the roadside to meet their children.
The bus driver has responsibility for the lives of those children, yet there is often mayhem behind him. Children will not always behave like little choir boys or angels, so what is a driver, who is driving in the snow and dark, to do when something happens? Is he to stop and thus risk skidding? It is surely essential for another adult to be on the bus. Is it not criminal that we should allow education authorities to have the right to make such a decision? Parliament must step in and say that when buses are provided from public funds to take children to school, it is unreasonable to expect the driver to accept total responsibility. After all, many schools are closing and children are now having to travel greater distances by bus.
Rightly, parents are not allowed to travel on the buses. But there is ample provision in Cleveland for lollipop men and women in the urban areas, so money cannot be the issue. The issue is whether there is the political will to provide escorts on buses. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the amendment. In the area immediately south of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) has the benefit of children being escorted. I hope that that will be extended to the children in my area. Parents can then feel happy when they release their children's hands in the morning. However, if the amendment is not accepted, I shall press it to a Division.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing new clause 38. He will know that my concern about these issues is longstanding. I first raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in 1984, and last year I introduced the Education (Costs of School Transport) Bill. On both occasions I focused on the problems arising from choice. Under

section 6 of the 1980 Act, parents can exercise the choice to send their children to a school other than that chosen by the local authority.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give an assurance that
shall have regard (amongst other things)
includes the exercise of choice under section 6 of that Act. I hope so, because otherwise the concession, while worthwhile and welcome, will leave a lacuna which many of us do not want to see.
My Bill concentrated on the problems of choice, but there are also problems of distance, which were highlighted in the case involving Essex county council I must disabuse hon. Members of the idea that that was an isolated case. In my constituency the chairman of the alliance-controlled education authority decided some months ago to withdraw concessionary bus passes from some children because it was found that the distance was 176 yards short of two miles. It at least made a welcome diversion from the alliance's policy of destroying Devon's grammar schools, but it would have meant that children were condemned to walk along a narrow road between Hawkmoor and Bovey Tracey. The visibility is bad on that road and there are numerous bends. Indeed, the road is so dangerous that if my car broke down in broad daylight, I would not attempt to walk along it. Yet apparently the chairman of the education authority thought that it would be quite suitable for young children to walk along it on a dark winter's evening.
It should not be necessary for legislation to deal with that sort of problem, but I know from my constituency experience that it is. However, on that occasion the problem was resolved probably because of the furore that occurred when the chairman made that attempt and because the Essex v. Rogers case then seemed to support the proposition that that could not be done. But there is now no reason to think that that decision could not be reversed. Consequently, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing this new clause affecting the distance travelled, but I hope that he will be able to offer some reassurance about section 6 choice.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing new clause 38, which takes into account the sort of road that children must walk along. For years we had a running battle with Lancashire county council, because although children could walk along an awful road to school from the outskirts of a little village called Galgate, no one in his right senses would attempt to do so. However, the other route that could have been used was a little too long to qualify. Happily the dispute is now resolved.
In another part of my constituency some of the scholars are on the wrong side of the A6. I am glad that they 'will be brought within the ambit of the new clause. It is extremely dangerous for children to cross the road. Thus, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking account of the tremendous anxieties felt, particularly by those parents who have more than one child. Sometimes their children go to different schools, and as a mother has only one pair of hands and one pair of feet, she can accompany children to only one school at a time. This new clause will remove much anxiety.

Mr. Robert Key: I am very sympathetic to new clause 33, although I have a slightly different reason for supporting it. My reason is nevertheless significant and I commend it to the House.
Some weeks ago a group of parents drew my attention to the fact that smoking on school buses was getting out of hand. Although children are being taught in school about the evils of substance abuse and, in particular, smoking, they can come out of their health education lessons and light up on their school buses. I took up the matter with the chief education officer, and yesterday he replied:
The driver of a vehicle is not permitted to smoke. This is included in the transport contract. However, it would be asking too much of them to discipline pupils who might smoke.
Thus, we have another example of the sort of problem that can arise particularly on single-man operated buses in rural areas. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point carefully. It is in the children's best interest that there should be as little smoking as possible on buses, particularly on school buses. For many years we have muddled through with kids smoking on buses, but we must carefully reconsider this situation.
I am glad that the Government have reacted so swiftly to the Suffolk case. I warmly welcome new clause 38 which answers many of the queries which have arisen in my constituency over a long time. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Art has investigated achievements in primary schools, and from time to time it has considered the problems of school transport. Many of us on that Committee will be delighted that this new clause has been moved by the Government, and I heartily support it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) drew attention to the changed circumstances in rural areas. The speed, size and quantity of vehicles on the roads has increased a great deal. We can all recount the tragic circumstances of deaths which have resulted from changes in driver and transport patterns. Only a few weeks ago there was a tragic death in the village of Downton in my constituency. At Britford, hundreds of parents and children are at risk twice a day due to the increased traffic to the cross-Channel terminal—the roll-on roll-off port of Poole. We face an increasingly violent society. Parents think twice about sending their children along roads which, when the 1944 Act was put before the House, were quite different.
Over the years the closure of many rural schools has led to children travelling greater distances to school. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has mentioned the injustices which have resulted because of the two or three-mile rule. There is the injustice of one county having a two-mile rule while the neighbouring county operates a three-mile rule. Such rules can even split a village in the middle of a high street. That is patently ridiculous. I press the Government to go further down the road which they have bravely started to tread.
Wages are often lower in rural areas. In such circumstances, even concessionary bus fares are a major hurdle every week for a family with two or three children. For such families there is no option but the bus. The family car will be used by the bread winner who, in country areas, must drive many miles to work. Mothers cannot always accompany their children, especially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) rightly said, when a family has children at different schools.
In rural areas, many children must undertake long journeys to school. It is not uncommon for children in my constituency to travel an hour each way. Bus deregulation has meant that some of the schedules have been changed and some children now face longer journeys than they did last term. They have not moved, but the rules have changed. That is not the fault nor the choice of parents in rural areas. It is a situation which has been imposed upon them for the administrative convenience of local education authorities.
Over the years, the goal posts for rural school transport have been changed. For that reason, there is a good case to be made for free school transport. That would be an important and radical step for the Government to consider. I can see the attraction of the proposed flat rate in new clause 24. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Government on moving new clause 38, and I warmly commend it.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I do not wish to rehearse the arguments in respect of school transport and the problems relating to distance. I wish to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for receiving my hon. Friends and myself when we made representations to him concerning these problems.
It was with a certain amount of malice aforethought that my hon. Friends and I tabled these amendments in July, bearing in mind the proximity of the Essex .v Rogers judgment. At that time we thought it appropriate that the Government should be prepared to act quickly should the judgment come down in favour of what is, in effect, parenthood. I, and no doubt many of my constituents, appreciate the speed with which the Government have acted on this occasion. They have not been dragged, kicking and screaming, to enact legislation; they have recognised a long, pent-up demand and acted quickly upon the judgment of the law.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), my hon. Friends and I would appreciate further explanation of "(amongst other things.)" I would also appreciate it if the Minister could confirm — I think he said this in his opening remarks—that the question of safety is important.

Mr. William Cash: I congratulate the Minister on these enlightened provisions. There have been problems in my constituency, and we are greatly indebted to him for the speed with which he has acted on this occasion.

Mr. Barry Porter: The deregulation of buses affects urban as well as rural areas.
A Catholic convent in the Wirral peninsula has found that it is extremely difficult for some of the girls to reach the convent because of bus deregulation changes. The school has studied the option of providing a bus of its own —the local authority providing the appropriate passes for pupils—but the school would have to find £30,000 for that purpose. I bring this to the attention of the Minister.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: For the past four years my county council has been studying the question of bus deregulation and school transport. It has found that by co-ordinating school transport, the services it wishes to provide and the bus pass concept, it has not only improved school transport but made substantial cost reductions. I wonder


whether my hon. Friend's local authority would like to get in touch with Hereford and Worcester county council to see what can be done.

Mr. Porter: I am grateful for that suggestion. I am sure that my local authority could learn a great deal.
I hope that the Minister can confirm that there is serious consultation between the Department of Transport and the Department of Education and Science on this matter and that it will come to fruition in the next three or four weeks. Indeed, I am sure the Minister will give that assurance. I have listened with interest to this debate, and I add my congratulations to the Department for this new clause, which is absolutely right.

Mr. Dunn: I wish to correct one omission, and that is to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) to the Front Bench in her new capacity. I have known her for many years, and I have enjoyed working with her in the short time since her appointment.
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mr. Galley), for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) for their remarks about the speed with which we have introduced this new clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As the Minister is dishing out mutual congratulations to everybody, will he pass on his congratulations to the Members of the House of Lords who kept school transport in the Bill against the wishes of the Government?

Mr. Dunn: I was about to say that I thought the debate had been good and even tempered and that it could only get better, but then the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish ( Mr. Bennett) intervened.
The new clause is in response to the views expressed by hon. Members before the House rose for the recess. We also received a number of representations during the recess. It was my recent pleasure to meet hon. Friends to discuss this matter. Consequently, for many, the new clause will not appear to cover new ground.
The new clause uses the specific words,
the local education authority shall have regard (amongst other things) to …
to specify the need to look at the transport arrangements for individual pupils. If the clause had specified only certain situations it would have had the effect of excluding other circumstances as and when they arose.
6 pm
The new clause enables local education authorities to consider other circumstances which they regard as significant in the context of local conditions. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked for qualification and an example. The health of a child might be a significantly important and relevant circumstance. We have said previously that post-Act guidance to local education authorities will be published. That could cover several of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for his comments about the Front Bench

responding so quickly, following the decision in the House of Lords. I can tell him with some pleasure that the "nature of the route" in new clause 38 includes safety matters. Local education authorities will be under a new duty to consider that when deciding the necessity for and incidence of school transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge asked me to comment on the application of section 6 of the Education Act 1980 to the new clause. The House will remember that section 6 concerns parental choice of school. New clause 38 relates solely to section 55 of the Education Act 1944, which provides for local education authorities to make arrangements for school transport to facilitate the attendance of pupils at schools. I am afraid that the cross-reference that my hon. Friend would like me to make is not there.
Although I appreciate the thrust of the intention behind new clause 23, I have to observe to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that the new clause would encourage parents to opt for distant schools because, for any school other than the nearest one, the local education authority would be debarred in any circumstances—not just in the provision of transport — from invoking 'the relief provided by section 6(3)(a) of the Education Act 1980, under which it need not meet a parental preference for a school if doing so would prejudice the provision of efficient education or use of resources.

Mr. Nicholls: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but surely that would apply only if a parent had chosen a school unreasonably far away. If parents chose a school six miles away, for example that would not prejudice the provision of efficient education. Surely it is not beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to devise a formula which takes account of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley).

Mr. Dunn: In a blinding intervention —it was one of his usual flashes—my hon. Friend has enabled me to say that I am here today to comment on the proposed new clause. I can only tell him in the nicest possible and gentlest way that the clause would revoke certain aspects of existing legislation which, in normal circumstances, he might not want revoked.
The policy that I have outlined is legitimate, but I am aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said in an apposite speech based on what is happening in Calderdale, that his local authority has recently changed its policy on free school transport I quite understand his anxieties about that but some of these matters must be left for local decision.
I believe that I might be able to help my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge a little in regard to new clause 24. It is already open to local education authorities, under section 55(2) of the Education Act 1944, to arrange for home to school transport to be free or at a reduced price. It is also open to local education authorities to arrange for the reduced price to be a single flat rate, but they might well consider that it is not unreasonable for those who travel the furthest to pay the most. My hon. Friend will understand my interest in this matter. I do not see why local education authorities should he prevented from acting on that view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh — I think that I now have the pronunciation right—

Mr. Holt: I am most grateful for yet another opportunity to put on record that my constituency is pronounced as though there were an "F" on the end.

Mr. Dunn: This is not just a debate on education; it is an education in itself.
New clause 33 concerns supervision of local education authority-provided transport in rural areas. The right for such supervision already exists under section 55 of the 1944 Act. I believe it best that any exercise of the power should depend on the test that the local education authority should consider it necessary. The new clause would seem to require adult supervision on rural, but not more urban, routes, and on local education authority-owned vehicles, but not on those run by other transport operators. I am always conscious of the overlay of extra responsibilities in terms of their financial implications for local education authorities. Ultimately somebody has to pay.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of a full-time professional assistant to the leader of Cleveland county council would more than cover the cost of any body to help save the lives of these children?

Mr. Dunn: I am sure that that point is well heard in my hon. Friend's constituency.
We have moved forward a great deal in this matter. The House has, I believe, accepted the Government's motives. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will accept new clause 38 and not press their new clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

NATIONAL EDUCATION COUNCIL

`(1) A National Education Council shall be established—

(a) to monitor curricula, teaching methods, examinations and methods of teacher training and in-service training;
(b) to assist, by co-operative study and co-ordination, the development of curricula, examinations, teaching methods and methods of teacher training and in service training;
(c) to publish its reviews and report annually and to promote good practice in the areas described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above;
(d) to publish its reviews and report annually and to promote good practice in the
(e) to assist the fostering and development of links between schools and the communities in which schools are placed.

(2) The membership of the National Education Council should be drawn in equal parts from the teachers' unions, representatives of local education authorities, the Department of Education and Science, parents' organisations and the churches.'.—[Mr. Radice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 14 —Human rights in schools—
'The local education authority by whom any county, voluntary or special school is maintained, and the governing body and the head teacher of the school, shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that the understanding and experience of human rights is encouraged in schools in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Human Rights in Schools).'
New clause 17—Record of achievement—

'The Secretary of State shall establish arrangements under which all pupils leaving school will be provided with a record of achievement which should detail successes in public examinations, educational attainments and personal qualities and should be as full a record as possible of the positive achievements of each pupil.'.
New clause 35—Competitive sports—
`(1) Local education authorities shall ensure that each school in their area after consultation with its governing body makes proper provision for the coaching and playing, by pupils over the age of seven, of competitive sports either on their own premises or otherwise:
Provided that the expenditure of a local education authority under this section in any financial year shall not exceed the product of a rate in the pound for their area determined by that authority with the approval of the Treasury for that year or, if some other amount whether higher or lower is fixed by an Order in a Statutory Instrument made by the Secretary of State, shall not exceed the product of a rate of that amount in the pound for its area for that year.
(2) The product of a rate in the pound for any area shall be computed for the purposes of this section by reference to the product of the rate of 1 p in the pound for that area as determined for those purposes in accordance with the rules made under section 113(1)(c) of the General Rate Act 1967.
(3) In this section "competitive sport" means sports specified by Order in a Statutory instrument by the Secretary of State after consultation with local education authorities and such persons or bodies as are, in his opinion, appropriate.
(4) A Statutory Instrument containing an order under subsections (1) and (3) may apply to all local education authorities or may make different provision in relation to different local education authorities and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 61, in clause 17, page 20, line 21, at end insert
'after consultation with headteachers, teachers, teachers' organisations and other such bodies as it sees fit to consult—'.
Government Amendments Nos. 62 to 65.
Amendment No. 68, in clause 18, page 21, line 4, leave out
'in their opinion' and insert 'in the light of the principles for the curriculum set out by the local authority in pursuance of section 17(1) above'.
Government Amendment No. 69.
Amendment No. 70, in clause 18, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
'(d) to determine and direct the school's curriculum, in the light of the principles set out by the local authority under section 17(1) and the aims of the governing body in sections 18(1)(b), to fulfil those agreed aims.'.
Government Amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
Amendment No. 147. in clause 42, page 46, line 41, at end insert
'the following activities where they fall outside the statement of curriculum policy published by the local education authority under section 17 of this Act.
Amendment No. 148, in clause 42, page 46, line 42, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment No. 223, in clause 42, page 46, line 42, after 'by', insert
', or involving, or otherwise seeking to influence,'.
Amendment No. 149, in clause 42, page 47, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
Government Amendment No. 151.
Amendment No. 152. in clause 43, page 47, line 19, at end insert—
'(2) The local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher of the school shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that, before pupils reach the age of 16, they shall have been given an introduction to—

(i) The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the European Social Charter;


(ii) the system of national and local government in this country;
(iii) the views of the main, national political parties;
(iv) the legal system;
(v) the welfare state and the system of benefits within it;
(vi) their legal and civil rights and responsibilities;
(vii) the world of industry and commerce;
(viii) the system of trades unions, and the rights and responsibilities of trades unions within the law; and
(ix) the work of charities and the voluntary sector.'.

Amendment No. 189, new Schedule—HUMAN RIGHTS IN SCHOOLS—

1. Human rights in the school curriculum
(1) The understanding and experience of human rights is an important element of the preparation of all young people for life in a democratic and pluraslistic society. It is part of social and political education, and it involves intercultural and international understanding.
(2) Concepts associated with human rights can, and should, he acquired from an early stage. For example, the non-violent resolution of conflict and respect for other people can already be experienced within the life of a pre-school or primary class.
(3) Opportunities to introduce young people to more abstract notions of human rights, such as those involving an understanding of philosophical, political and legal concepts, will occur in the secondary school, in particular in such subjects as history, geography, social studies, moral and religious education, language and literature, current affairs and economics.
(4) Human rights inevitably involve the domain of politics. Teaching about human rights should, therefore, always have international agreements and covenants as a point of reference, and teachers should take care to avoid imposing their personal convictions on their pupils and involving them in ideological struggles.

2. Skills
The skills associated with understanding and supporting human rights include:

(a) intellectual skills, in particular:

—skills associated with written and oral expression, including the ability to listen and discuss, and to defend one's opinions;
—skills involving judgment, such as:
—the collection and examination of material from various sources, including the media, and the ability to analyse it and to arrive at fair and balanced conclusions;
—the ability to analyse it and to arrive at fair and balanced conclusions;
— the identification of bias, prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination;

(b) social skills, in particular:

—recognising and accepting differences;
—establishing positive and non-oppressive personal relationships;
—resolving conflict in a non-violent way;
—taking responsibility;
—participating in decisions;

understanding the use of the mechanisms for the protection of human rights at local, regional, European and world levels.

3. Knowledge to he acquired in the study of human rights
(1) The study of human rights in schools will be approached in different ways according to the age and circumstances of the pupil and the particular situations of schools and education systems. Topics to be covered in learning about human rights could include:

(a) the main categories of human rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities;
(b) the various forms of injustice, inequality and discrimination, including sexism and racism;
(c) people, movements and key events, both successes and failures, in the historical and continuing struggle for human rights;
(d) the main international declaration and conventions on human rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


(2) The emphasis in teaching and learning about human rights should he positive. Pupils may be led to feelings of powerlessness and discouragement when confronted with many examples of violations and negations of human rights. Instances of progress and success should be used.
(3) The study of human rights in schools should lead to an understanding of, and sympathy for, the concepts of justice, equality, freedom, peace, dignity, rights and democracy. Such understanding should be both cognitive and based on experience and feelings. Schools should thus, provide opportunities for pupils to experience effective involvement in human rights and to express their feelings through drama, art, music, creative writing and audiovisual media.

4. The climate of the school
(1) Democracy is best learned in a democratic setting where participation is encouraged, where views can he expressed openly and discussed, where there is freedom of expression for pupils and teachers, and where there is fairness and justice. An appropriate climate is, therefore, an essential complement to effective learning about human rights.
(2) Schools should encourage participation in their activities by parents and other members of the community. It may well be appropriate for schools to work with non-governmental organisations which can provide information, case-studies and first-hand experience of successful campaigns for human rights and dignity.
(3) Schools and teachers should attempt: to be positive towards all their pupils, and recognise that all of their achievements are important—whether they be academic, artistic, musical, sporting or practical.

5. Teacher training
(1) The initial training of teachers should prepare them for their future contribution to teaching about human rights in their schools. For example, future teachers should:

(a) be encouraged to take an interest in national and world affairs;
(b) have the chance of studying or working in a foreign country or a different environment;
(c) be taught to identify and combat all forms of discrimination in schools and society and be encouraged to confront and overcome their own prejudices.

(2) Future and practising teachers should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with:

i. the main international declarations and conventions on human rights;
ii. the working and achievements of the international organisations which deal with the protection and promotion of human rights, for example through visits and study tours.

(3) All teachers need, and should be given the opportunity, to update their knowledge and to learn new methods through in-service training. This could include the study of good practice in teaching about human rights, as well as the development of appropriate methods and materials.

6. International Human Rights Day
Schools and teacher training establishments should be encouraged to observe International Human Rights Day (10th December).'.

Mr. Radice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) on her new appointment. We shall miss the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), but we are pleased to welcome her.
New clause 6 would establish a National Education Council on which the Secretary of State, local authorities, teachers, parents, churches and others would be represented. Hon. Members will agree that, relative to our main competitors, we are an under-educated and under-trained nation. On most indicators, whether nursery school places, the staying-on rate, the opportunities for training or qualifications at 16 and at degree level, we are


well down the league table. It is clear that we need a major national effort to raise standards and improve education opportunities. A national programme on such a scale requires consensus, co-operative effort and partnership. Unfortunately, far from encouraging partnership, the Government have undermined it.
The Secretary of State, as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, bears some responsibility for the fact that the Government have been locked in conflict with local government for a number of years, mainly because the Government have deliberately starved local government of resources—a cumulative total of £17 billion has been lost from central Government support since 1979.
After at least two years of dispute and uncertainty, the teachers remain alienated and demoralised. It is not helpful that the Government have still not made their attitude clear to the Coventry heads of agreement. They must bear some responsibility for the difficulties that are now faced.
It is no wonder that parents and voters are so worried about what is happening. According to a recent poll, more that two thirds of those questioned disapproved of the Government's handling of education. There were big majorities in favour of more spending on education and only 6 per cent. believed that the Government had succeeded in raising education standards.
Far _from trying to recreate the partnership which has broken down in recent years, the Government have responded to their unpopularity by putting the blame on local education authorities and teachers. They are also attempting to distract the voters with gimmicky initiatives.
The launching of the so-called city technology colleges is typical of the Government's approach. It is interesting that the Secretary of State has not attempted to win support for the initiative. Instead, he is trying to impose the CTCs outside the local education authority system and without the backing of teachers. I believe that the CTC proposal is educationally unsound, technologically illiterate and socially divisive. If the Secretary of State had consulted the education partners, they would have told him why the proposal will do nothing to improve educational prospects, but the right hon. Gentleman is charging ahead regardless, intent only on providing his party with an electoral fig leaf.
If we are to raise standards and improve educational opportunities, we must, as a matter of urgency, reforge the educational partnership. Our system is a decentralised one and it is right that it should remain so. It would be undesirable and impracticable to try to run all our schools from Elizabeth house, which is what some Tories seem to suggest.
If we are to move forward, we need to bring together what the Secretary of State calls the users and producers in education, for the benefit of the community as a whole. That is the case for setting up a National Education Council on which the main education partners would be represented.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the city technology colleges have received widespread approval? They will bridge the gap between industry and education and will be a useful benchmark against which other schools may be judged. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that there is a

feeling on the Conservative Benches that all schools should be administered from Elizabeth house. That has not been suggested.

Mr. Radice: There is a later amendment on that issue, and I think that some Conservative Members would like that system to come about.
The problem with the CTC proposal is that, because it will involve 1,000 pupils in an area where there are, say, 5,000 pupils, it is bound to cream off pupils and scarce teaching resources. Therefore, the proposal must be at the expense of other schools. The proposal has not been widely welcomed by teachers or local education authorities and doubt has been expressed by industrialists as well. I would not make the bold claim that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) makes.
6.15 pm
The purpose of the National Education Council would be to get agreement on matters of major educational importance, such as the curriculum, the exam system, teacher training and minimum standards of educational provision. There is far too wide a gap between the authorities that are doing the proper job of ensuring reasonable spending and a reasonable pupil-teacher ratio and those with a much worse record. We need to get an agreement on a minimum standard of provision and a National Education Council would help us to do that.
Of course, a National Education Council could not, by itself, guarantee consensus or change, but it would make those aims far easier to achieve and would certainly offer a more constructive way forward than the authoritarian and strident approach displayed by the Prime Minister in the interview published in today's Daily Express. We need something very different from that approach. If we are to succeed, we need a new approach based on co-operation and consensus, and I believe that the setting up of a National Education Council would be an essential ingredient in that strategy.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I thank the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for his kind words in welcoming me to my new post in the Department. I acknowledge that it will be difficult for me to follow the high standards set by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten).
The hon. Member for Durham, North introduced his new clause with some interesting arguments and justifications. My experience over the past few days shows that it is typical of the Opposition to attack the imaginative city technology college initiative for the maintained sector. We rarely hear from Opposition Members about any new initiatives to help the maintained sector and improve the lot of the children in that sector.
The hon. Member for Durham, North spoke about the notion that there should be a sort of parliament for education. That proposal is included in his recent Fabian pamphlet "A Socialist Plan for Education". The proposal appears late on in the pamphlet—on page 19, I think—but it is central to his plan that we need to set up a parliament for education.
It may surprise some hon. Members, including those who serve on the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, which looks at education, and whose membership includes Opposition Members, that the


Opposition do not believe that the House is an adequate place to be an education parliament. That is a bit of a shame.
Of course, we recognise that education is a partnership. I have been on the other side of the partnership and often negotiated with the Government about the allocation of resources—

Mr. Radice: The hon. Lady had some tough things to say.

Mrs. Rumbold: Indeed, I did, because that was my job at the time. I have been tough about the allocation of resources and in negotiations with the teachers. All those matters continue in negotiations and in partnership with central Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly consults his partners in the local authorities and the teachers' organisations on all these matters. He also consults a wide range of other interest groups in the education and other areas on specific policy developments, as the occasion requires. My right hon. Friend also receives advice relevant to the exercise of his functions from Her Majesty's inspectorate and other bodies such as the Secondary Examinations Council and the Schools Curriculum Development Committee, hut, of course, my right hon. Friend properly is accountable to the House. I hope that that is what we all want. Local authorities are accountable to their electorates. We support that. We do not suggest that the Department of Education and Science should do all their work. As a result of the Bill schools will be the responsibility of local authorities. There is ample space for dialogue and discussion, but no space for the new type of quango that the new clause urges upon us.
Both sides agree about some matters. I shall explain some of the useful amendments to clauses 17 to 19 which are based upon suggestions made in Committee. I shall not dwell upon them because they involve little dissent. The first group of amendments is designed to ensure that local education authority and governors' statements on the curriculum are widely and freely available. Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 and Nos. 69 and 72 secure that. Both the LEAs and the relevant governors' statements will be available for consultation in all county and controlled schools. I expect that in practice they will be more widely available, but that will depend upon local interest and other factors.
In aided schools LEA statements will always be available, but under the Bill there is no requirement that aided school governors should make any written statement of their curriculum policies. We do not intend to change that, but where governors choose to make such statements parents should have access to them. Amendment No. 72, which has been fully accepted by the churches and other voluntary school interests, secures that.
The final Government amendment, which also affects aided and special agreement schools, has been welcomed in our recent consultations. It extends to the governors of such schools the obligation to have regard to representations about the curriculum from those connected with the community served by the school. It is clearly right that the community served by an aided school should have, and be seen to have, the same right to be heard as that served by any other type of school. The new subsection (2) to clause 19 achieves this.
The small drafting amendment No. 151 improves the presentation of clause 43 and contains no changes of substance.

Mr. Cash: I wish to speak to new clause 35 entitled "Competitive Sports". It is supported by the Central Council for Physical Recreation which represents about 250 bodies involved in sporting activities. I am told that about 40,000 amateur football clubs, 1,500 rugby union clubs, as many as 3 million squash players and countless cricketers and others will be deeply interested in the new clause.
There is a thin red line—or perhaps a thin blue line —which one must tread in such matters. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nods his head. I seek to be constructive. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on her new appointment and I look for an assurance from her that what I have to say on the subject will be well received by the Government.
My argument is about competition in schools and that part of the curriculum which covers sporting activitities. It is directly related to the Government's philosophy and policy.
I can do no better than to repeat what the Secretary of State said shortly before 9 July, when he commented:
Equality of opportunity means the achievers must be allowed to achieve. If you don't believe that, then everything will sink into a grey mass of mediocrity.
The Secretary of State added:
The world is a highly competitive place and nations which cannot compete go under.
That was said not in the context of competition alone, but specifically about the absurd attempts by the Labour-controlled Inner London education authority to abolish competitive sports in schools to save the losers from humiliation. The reality is well documented in a report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 9 July.
Hon. Members may laugh, but I refer them to an article in The Guardian, three days later, which stated:
Are Britain's teachers really as dotty as they sometimes seem? …Inner London Schools are trying to stamp out the First XI mentality by stopping inter-school football matches. Cricket is seemingly all but extinct within the state system. Rugby cannot be mentioned within politically correct society … The effects of all this are obvious. International sports success will soon be beyond the British.
The leader writer in The Guardian continues:
the anti-sports policy isn't carefully thought out at all … Let's leave aside the fact that the anti-team sports, anticompetitive polices are actually rather racist because they prevent activities which a lot of black children are especially keen on.
He concludes:
That is a truly pernicious approach and no education authority worth its salt ought to pander to the stupid teachers who support it.
—[Interruption.]
Before Opposition Members protest too much, I urge the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) to take up the matter by replying with a letter to The Guardian.
There are a number of problems connected with the provision of suitable facilities for the coaching and playing of sport in schools.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is not one of the worst problems of our schools the circular issued by the previous Conservative Government advising local authorities, to review the number of school playing fields that they use and to sell them? Have not a substantial number of school


playing fields been sold for housing, with the result that some schools no longer have the space for a cricket square and facilities for winter sports?

Mr. Cash: Naturally, I deplore the unnecessary disposal of playing fields.
Local authorities do not have a duty to provide adequate coaching and playing space for school sports. That is what my new clause is about. Their power is merely permissive, so they can choose whether to provide sporting facilities in schools. On many occasions they choose the easy way. That is why the new clause imposes a duty. A slippery slope is formed because no duty exists.
I believe that competitive sport is part of the curriculum, and I hope that we will legislate along the lines that I suggest.
I refer the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to circular 16/78 from the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, entitled,
The Development of Sporting Talent in Children of School Age
which was issued by the then Labour Government. I regret that the circular has not been followed as it should have been and is regarded as unsatisfactory. Today's debate allows us to discuss competitive sports in schools and to come up with something meaningful. A duty rather than a mere power should be imposed.
6.30 pm
The CCPR represents about 250 bodies, including the Welsh Rugby Union, the Rugby Football Union, the National Cricket Association and the Amateur Athletic Association. Indeed, scarcely any body concerned with sport is not a member of the council. Bearing in mind the millions of people who take part in competitive sport, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take the new clause seriously, because it is consistent with the philosophy of both the Government and the Bill.
The new clause proposes consultation with governing bodies. Subject to an overall cost limitation, parents would have the legal right to tell governing bodies and head teachers of schools where competitive sports were not provided that they are required to provide them.
I believe that the new clause deserves the Government's support. If it were suggested that there should be greater business involvement in the provision of sport, I would agree; but if it were suggested that we should rely on voluntary sports clubs, I could not agree. Indeed, it may come as a shock to my hon. Friend the Minister, or to anyone who might put forward that suggestion as the panacea, to learn—as was confirmed on the radio this morning — that the increase in rates in Scotland has made it increasingly difficult for local authorities to maintain a position which enables schools to afford the provision of the required playing fields.
It is said that similar provisions will come into effect in the remainder of the country in 1990. Last weekend The Sunday Times estimated that the rates at Lords could increase from £27,000 to £500,000 in 1990. If that happened throughout the country, it would cause serious difficulties for voluntary sports organisations.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is advancing a most important argument. I support

him wholeheartedly on the importance of the curriculum content within schools and the importance of the link that he has established. Certainly no one should overlook such an august body as the CCPR.
My hon. Friend the Minister has had a foot in both camps—in Marsham street and now south of the river—and I congratulate her on her transfer. She has a special understanding both at local authority and departmental levels. To be realistic, we shall not progress much further with the proposal tonight. However, given the degree of concern about this matter, perhaps the most important action would be to undertake a detailed survey. I suggest that from my experience in office of the confused nature of some of the statistics and the availability of facts and information I think that local education authorities, the Sports Council and the CCPR should undertake a 12-month investigation and detailed analysis.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. When my new clause was selected for debate this afternoon, a letter from the Minister with responsibility for sport was sent to me by hand marked, "Immediate — most urgent". My hon. Friend the Minister quite rightly drew attention to the fact that he is holding a seminar in November when such matters can be investigated. I congratulate him on that initiative. However, neither I nor the CCPR—for which I hope I speak — believe that it is adequate to deal with the matter through a seminar when legislation is clearly needed.
I could produce at least an inch of evidence from schools throughout the country to support my case about head teachers who have been creating difficulties for children. The new clause is not just about getting children on to playing fields; it is about team co-operation, health, education, competition and national standards for sport. I hope that the Government will positively welcome my suggestions.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks. Although I agree with everything that he said, I wish to deal especially with Opposition amendment No. 148 and my amendment No. 223, both of which relate to political indoctrination in schools.
Two years ago 180 of my colleagues either joined me in the Lobby to support my ten-minute Bill or signed an early-day motion. I admit that for two years nothing happened in the Department. I understand that a senior mandarin is quoted as saying:
Since the concept of indoctrination is antithetical to that of education the current Education Act, by virtue of being an Education Act, implicitly disallows biased political teaching.
That may be an appropriate gesture by one of our senior civil servants, but it has not prevented political indoctrination in our schools. I was delighted when the Government acceded to an amendment tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Cox in another place, and it is to that that clause 42 relates.
Traditionally our education has been based on consensus, but that is now breaking down. The consensus is simply that children are placed in schools in loco parentis and that teachers do not have a right to inculcate their political viewpoints into their education. When most of us were at school, current affairs classes were usually confined to a Friday afternoon. I do not think that any of


us knew the political viewpoint of our teachers — [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but I did not know whether my teachers voted Conservative, Labour or Liberal—and that was quite right.
Although the vast majority of teachers comply with traditional forms of teaching, a small militant minority have indulged in a form of teaching that can be described only as brutal, intellectual sermonising. They have not sought to encourage children to develop their own thinking on political matters but instead have tried to instil in them their own political views. That was shown most clearly in an address by Mr. Chris Searle, who was sometime acting head of humanities in a London school. He said:
When we deal with El Salvador we are dealing firstly and fundamentally with violence and armed struggle and we have to come to terms with the fact that there are two forms of violence.
Mr. Searle was trying to inculcate his views in his pupils' education.
He continued:
There's the bestial, inhuman violence which buttresses a tyrannical and proxy regime and another form of violence —a righteous violence—a revolutionary violence— a just violence in which, for example, the fighters for justice and freedom in El Salvador or Namibia are engaged.
He was telling his pupils that some forms of violence are to be applauded when they are in pursuit of political objectives with which he agrees. That is worrying, and that is why clause 42 is so desperately needed. I am surprised that the Labour party is seeking in its amendment to make it meaningless.
The examples of Mr. Searle and others are perhaps extreme, but in one London school question paper the following question was set:
The money required to provide adequate food, water, education. health and housing for everyone in the world is estimated at $17,000 million (£11,500 million) a year. How many weeks of NATO and Warsaw Pact military spending would be enough to pay for this? (Show all your working).
It is clear that the question is biased. It is an attempt to channel children's minds into a certain political viewpoint. Instead of encouraging children to think for themselves, they are having a political viewpoint rammed down their throats, which cannot be right.
Amendment No. 223 deals with one small aspect of the problem and clause 42 should go a long way towards banning political indoctrination, but it relates to
the pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at the school… and … the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.
I am worried because that will not prevent teachers from placing posters on walls, such as CND posters. As long as they do not teach the subject, they will get away with it. It is important that at this late stage we should tighten up the Bill if we can.
I was told that in Lincoln a poster of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was placed on a school notice board and someone wrote upon it that she should have a bullet put through her head. That might be said to be laughable, hut what is that sort of poster doing on school walls? When I visited a school in my constituency of Horncastle, I saw a CND poster on a wall. The place for CND posters is not in our schools, and nor is there a place for Conservative party posters in our schools. The same goes for Labour party posters. We do not want any party

political posters in our schools, but they have been finding their way into them and that is why clause 42 is so necessary.
The most noticeable form of political indoctrination in the past two or three years has been so-called peace studies. Invariably they deal not with one aspect of peace but peddle a unilateralist line. That is bad enough, but they seek to inculcate a particular form of thinking. For example, the following question was placed in a Bournemouth question paper for schools:
Do you realise that the mobility of cruise missiles on trucks makes the south of England one big target area?
why should children be posed that sort of question? Why should they be required to think in those terms? When I introduced a ten-minute Bill, I produced evidence, including the ILEA dove pack, which contained no fewer than 60 items peddling the unilateralist line. Only two items gave any help to teachers who were to teach so-called peace studies by dealing with the multilateralist line. As we well know, many peace studies do not deal with peace in its entirety. Instead, they try to peddle one line.
Another difficult area on which I want briefly to touch is anti-racial studies. All of us in the House abhor racism and we hope that our education system will inculcate in our young people a hatred of anything that can possibly be termed racist. The traditional and Christian concepts of education inculcated that kind of belief by seeking to instil in pupils compassion, care for others and a belief that all people are born with at least equality of opportunity. The anti-racism studies that we have seen develop in some of our schools, especially in London, are very different from that. In one ILEA teaching pack, for example, the tactics of the police in the miners' strike were equated with Auschwitz. That is an outrageous comparison and is an example of partisan political teaching in our schools. There is a danger that that will lead children to trivialise the horrors of Auschwitz. That kind of teaching has no place in our schools.
6.45 pm
I have a copy of a letter of 30 May that was sent from the South Tyneside borough council to all schools in the local authority area. It calls on the schools to co-ordinate 10 days of action from 16 to 26 June in campaigning on South Africa. Most of us on these Benches abhor apartheid and we would like to feel that our children will have inculcated in them a belief that apartheid is wrong, but should we be campaigning against apartheid in our schools? Of course not. That is not the way to deal with the problem, but that has been going on in our schools. That is why we need clause 42.
Education in a free society should enshrine the principle of freedom to pursue truth in all its different guises. The only truth is that there is no truth save the necessity of seeking it at all times. It is not the purpose of education to inculcate in immature minds half-baked political theories from the Right or the Left. That is why clause 42 is so important. I commend it to the House.

Sir Hector Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has tabled new clause 35. It is designed to ensure that children will have sufficient sport and recreation at school. This is a matter of attitudes and priorities and not of money and I think that we can show to Ministers the importance that we attach to this subject.
I shall not be diverted to the issue of rates, which we debated when dealing with Scottish legislation as long ago as 1984. I think that the rates issue will be resolved in good time and we should not become too anxious about it at this stage of the Session.
A great improvement in sport and recreation at schools can be obtained without additional expenditure. We want enthusiasm from staff and parents, much better organisation of available time, better coaching and a much better use of facilities, many of which are of exceptional quality.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I think that my hon. Friend should stress that there is a real danger to sport in schools because of the positive antagonism to it in many schools, especially those in the ILEA area. Sadly, this antagonism is spreading throughout the country. The problem is not confined to lack of enthusiasm.

Sir Hector Monro: I am sure that the House will take note of my hon. Friend's serious warning. He speaks with first-hand knowledge of the south-east of England.
Sporting and recreational facilities are extremely good in many instances and it is most unfortunate that they are shut and not available for use for part of the time. For years, those interested in sport and recreation as well as education have talked about the dual use of facilities so that children can use them during the day and the evening while parents can use them at night. Time and again we have been told that this is impossible, and all sorts of attitudes have been advanced. There should be more enthusiasm within the Department of Education and Science to resolve this basic problem.
I accept that we have to face the difficulties of providing caretakers and access to the public, for example, but when facilities are so under-used we must find answers to the problems. It is frustrating that this issue has been with us for many years. During my humble period as the Minister with responsibilities for sport, I spoke to Ministers of the Department of Education and Science—this was in 1980 and 1981 — and urged them to try with me to make progress. Progress in this area has been singularly slow under both Labour and Conservative Governments.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to using the community programme to provide maintenance for some of our sporting fields? That is something which would fit in well with the problems that stem from a great deal of unemployment.

Sir Hector Monro: That is another constructive idea to throw into the debate. Given the pressure that has been placed on the Department over many years to take dual use seriously, I hope that it will show resolve to overcome the difficulties that seem to present an impossible problem to those interested in obtaining the use of gymnasiums, squash courts and swimming pools, all of which lie idle in the evenings.
Why is sport and recreation so important in education? I believe that sport and recreation and the part that games play in education are all part of the quality of education and we see the development of character and leadership through team games and individual pursuits such as hill walking, ski-ing, and so on. Any form of adventure training must be encouraged in our schools. We must

encourage our children to reach achievements that they felt were beyond their capabilities. They must be pushed, but not too far. We must have a careful balance between what is a foolhardy activity and an acceptable risk. We must set out with such goals in mind—not the rather flaccid "do nothing, lie down and go to to sleep" attitude of many educationists.
Team spirit may be a throwaway line, but it is vital at school and in many aspects of life. It develops loyalty in every respect. It enables the building of morale and the acceptance of discipline. Professional sportsmen should see children playing football, rugby and cricket and accepting the decision of the referee or umpire without question. To achieve that, there is much to be done on the field in terms of discipline. That starts at school.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decline in team sports, which has been illustrated on the national field in games such as football, cricket and rugby, with the honourable exception of hockey, is perhaps due to the reason that he has just mentioned— that in some cases teachers have tried to get away from the competitive element and have encouraged individual sports? Should we not encourage team sports so that Britain can once again be great?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed. Much of the purpose of my hon. Friend's new clause is to develop team sports. In view of the great world hockey championships which took place over the past fortnight, one can see what can be done if the spirit and enthusiasm are present. I give all credit to England for its remarkable achievement in hockey and the tremendous spirit in which the tournament was played. That tournament showed that, to have high quality games, one must have high quality facilities. The all-weather pitch on which the hockey was played enabled the games to be of a high standard. One could not have seen such a standard on the average grass field that is provided at many schools, when it is a hit or miss operation. Hockey played under such conditions can be a miserable form of sport. We must bear in mind that it does rain in this country. We have far too many football and rugby pitches at schools that become mud heaps by about February or March. The facilities need to be better for the wet weather.
The point on which we are all agreed is that, if a school is at the top educationally, it is absolutely certain that it is also at the top through team games—

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish my sentence. The excellence of education academically and through games is complementary. Schools that have a high morale academically and in games are usually extremely good schools.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman never says a word about money. The cuts in education have meant that schools are grumpy and books are missing. The hon. Gentleman advocates doing things in sport when his Government is cutting money on a grand scale. We cannot possibly do what he suggests.

Sir Hector Monro: It is high time that the hon. Gentleman listened to other Member's speeches. I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that enthusiasm for sport in schools need not cost a penny more than it does


at present. It is a question of using time, teachers and facilities adequately. There is no need to spend more money. It is a question of changing attitudes. The hon. Member's attitude is completely wrong. I repeat that good schools in education and good schools in sport are outstandingly good schools for our children. That is what we want to achieve. Children who come from a good school will walk tall. Their morale will be high through both their academic and sporting achievements. Nothing that I have suggested during my speech would cost a penny. It requires a change of attitude by those in authority and encouragement by Ministers and the Department of Education and Science. We have physical education teachers of high quality. They can be excellent coaches. So where are we going wrong? Indoor facilities are good, but perhaps they are insufficient.
I have spoken about this country's climate and the quality of outdoor pitches. Time is not on our side. The world judges a country by its performance at sport. At the top of the pyramid we are very good. We have exceptionally gifted performers and world champions; I pay all credit to them. However, at the base, I am afraid that our performance is average. Indeed, we could say that it is mediocre. We want to see more centres of excellence based in our schools so that governing bodies, which are led so well by the Central Council of Physical Recreation, encourage children, when they reach 16 and 17 years, to join sports clubs and enjoy sports and recreation after they have left school.

Mr. Freud: Cannot the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish Member of Parliament and an ex-Minister, do something about the Scottish rating authorities killing off Scottish athletic clubs?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman has not listened either. I started my speech by saying that I did not want to go into the details of rating. The rating issue is one of the sports clubs and not of schools. The rating issue was debated in great detail by the Scottish Standing Committee in 1984. 1 am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read all the proceedings. He knows that the English and Scottish sports clubs are valued on a different proposition. That must be faced in future. It is not an issue at the moment. It is certainly not an issue in the new clause regarding schools.
I encourage my hon. Friends to lead education authorities towards greater prominence for sport and recreation in our schools. That would be an advantage to schools both academically and physically through the morale, leadership and sportsmanship that team games bring to schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has given the House a great opportunity to set the flag waving for sport and recreation. I hope that Ministers will respond with similar enthusiasm.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) in this most important new clause. Bearing in mind hon. Members' enthusiasm for the game of hockey and their delight at the England team's success, I hope that we shall have success in recruiting more colleagues into the Lords and Commons hockey XI. I invite them to come along.
The new clause is a sad but necessary one. I think of the sporting situation when I first became involved in London schools a long time ago. In 1957 I was elected as General Secretary of the Westminster Schools Athletics

Association. Every primary and secondary school in Westminster belonged to that association. We made it our business to see that there were competitive games for every child in every school—boy and girl, in whatever his or her chosen game might be. There was a considerable shortage of facilities in that area. Children had to travel across to Battersea and beyond to get the facilities they needed for sport. Today, in many schools there are no team games, even though there are pitches on the school campus and outside the school's front door. They lie unused for weeks on end, despised by local authorities and some school governors. That just will not do. It is unfair to children. There is a traditional and substantial motto in education —mens sano in corporo sano—which means "a healthy body produces a healthy mind". I think that this has been accepted—,[Interruption]—not by all, not by one or two fat men—

7 pm

Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that a study in the midlands, which is cited in The Observer of 16 March 1986, has shown that 83 per cent. of children engaged in less than five minutes' vigorous activity a day? That is appalling. As the article says:
If typical, this statistic must cause grave anxieties to those interested in the future wellbeing of the nation.

Mr. Greenway: That is an important point. Further, 85 per cent. of all children do not take part in any sport beyond the age of 15. That statistic has been established for a number of years. The percentage is increasing, which is very sad.
Because of the lack of sport and competitive team games our schools are losing a crucial and helpful ingredient in the education of our young. If children can take part in games, particularly competitive team games, under the direction of a referee or an umpire, they can press one another to the limit, under proper rules. Children will press one another to the limit at other times if they are not allowed team games. I know from long experience that that- is one reason for the type of aggression that is appearing in some schools. Children must be allowed an outlet for their physical and mental energies and their determination to compete. If that is not allowed in sport, there will be aggravation of a type we do not want.
Sadly, we are losing as a nation because of the weakness of sport in schools. Mike Gatting, the England cricket captain, who made a fine innings this week, probably would not play cricket if he were in a London school today. [Interruption.] It is no good saying that I should get on, this is an important matter. Labour Members may not care about children and facilities for them but Conservative Members do.
I am president of two school sports associations which attempt to do a great deal for children in our schools, but that is becoming increasingly difficult. Schools are the only place in which we can cope with large numbers of children involved in sport and team games. Clubs cannot do so. In any case, the children who join clubs to learn sport have to buy or be given equipment. Many will not have a chance. That is wrong. The schools should provide opportunities to play sport, and the necessary equipment, so that every child, whoever he or she is, can play sport.
Playing individual games or competing against an environment or one's own performance during childhood has led many people to a job in adulthood as a professional


cricket player, soccer player, and so on. Unless we do something about sport, we shall deny children a valuable avenue to enjoy work in their adult lives. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mrs. Rumbold: I turn first to the important points on competitive sports raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash), for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the importance of competitive sport in schools. As he has acknowledged, there is to be a seminar involving my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), to discuss sport in schools. I hope that we shall take cognisance of the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) who asked us to consider a national survey of what is happening in the sporting world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spoke at length about the CCPR. That will be one of the bodies which will take part in the seminar on school sport which, with the agreement of Ministers, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment will hold in November. That seminar will be attended by a wide range of representatives of the national sports associations and the education partners—teachers and advisers. We want to support strongly the views of all my hon. Friends.

Mr. Cash: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that one problem is that the Minister with responsibility for sport is from the Department of the Environment. The sports issue arises in the context of the curriculum in schools, which falls within the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department. I hope that she will address the need for legislation in the context of political purposes as they affect local authorities just as she did before being elevated to her present position.

Mrs. Rumbold: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment, I shall come to his points about the possibility of legislation. It is important in the context of the Bill to consider how sport is placed on the curriculum. Important discussions are taking place between the partners, which are the governing bodies and the sporting interests. I fully understand the emphasis that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has placed on sport in schools and his philosophy. The competitive spirit is an essential part of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North emphasised the point that sport plays an important part in the curriculum and in the school structure in developing a school spirit.
The Government firmly believe that the organisation and delivery of a schools curriculum are properly matters for local determination. Clauses 17 to 19 clearly define the roles of the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher in that process—roles that are not entirely compatible with the absolute duty in respect of sport which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would place on local education authorities. I ask him to accept that it would be difficult in the context of the Bill to have competitive sport specifically protected by statute and afforded, alone among all the curriculum subjects, the same status as religious education.

Mr. Cash: I ask my hon. Friend to accept the point that my new clause proposes no more than that there should be consultation between local education authorities and schools and between the Secretary of State, local education authorities and schools, which, effectively, would give parents a right which they do not have at the moment to insist upon something that is in the interests of their children.

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that my hon. Friend will admit that we have discussed at considerable length the methods by which we had hoped to encourage consultation between the Secretary of State, the governors and the schools about the order of the curriculum. The Bill's general thrust is to include parents on governing bodies to enable them to consider how to organise the curriculum in the way they think most suitable. I emphasise that, by increasing parental influence on governing bodies, we are seeking the very provisions in schools which my hon. Friend hopes to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also proposes that the new duty would be modified to the extent by which it would be unlawful for authorities to spend more in this area than the sum determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That, as hon. Gentlemen will recognise, represents a radical departure from the way in which the level of funding for provision in schools is otherwise decided. I could not see a justification, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept, for the funding of provision for competitive sport in schools to be afforded any treatment under the law different from that provided for other subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) raised the matter of the importance of clause 42. I am grateful to those in the other place who put this clause within the Bill. We sincerely agree with all that my hon. Friend said. He has associated himself with amendments Nos. 148 and 149, which argue that we should delete the requirement to forbid the pursuit of partisan political activities. That would leave a significant gap in clause 42 because paragraph (1)(b) deals only with the promotion of partisan political views during the teaching of any subject in schools and does not include the many activities which teachers may arrange outside the normal teaching programme.

Mr. Leigh: I hope that there has not been a misunderstanding. I was opposing the Labour party's amendment.

Mrs. Rumbold: I accept that. However, my hon. Friend moved amendment No. 223. Unfortunately, that would impart a much wider understanding than we intend. Taken together, clauses 42 and 43 provide a comprehensive set of provisions against political indoctrination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle made an important point about posters. We both recognise that in former incarnations within the House we have raised this matter with the Department of the Environment. Posters which would bring political issues to the attention of pupils will be covered by clause 43. That will require that where such issues are brought to the attention of pupils they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views. I cannot see how a poster on its own which presents a particular political view, for example, by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, could meet that requirement. On the other hand, if there


were to be a mock election in a school, posters of all different political parties would be reasonable and acceptable.
I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it is not possible for me to accept amendment No. 223, not only because it would widen the extent of clause 42 beyond necessity but because seeking to influence pupils is unspecified and therefore the paragraph is ungrammatical.

Mr. Radice: In this group of amendments and new clauses we have been debating a considerable number of subjects. I want to put on record the fact that we are sympathetic to the idea behind new clause 35. We are strongly in favour of sport in schools, both team and individual sports. In fact, the Inner London education authority would be in favour of a duty to provide competitive sports. My local authority, Durham, which is Labour-controlled and has been for many years, is strongly in favour of sport, and is in the forefront of providing it in schools. Clearly, we have to look at new ways, new policies and new money for providing sport in schools.
Our new clause deals with the setting up of an education council. I was glad that the Minister had my Fabian pamphlet. At least, I am glad that her civil servants have read it, even if she has not. I urge the hon. Lady to read it. The Minister accused me of ignoring the role of Parliament. In fact, we are strong believers in the Select Committee system. I hope that the next Labour Government will treat that system with more respect than this Government have done, especially the Select Commit tee on Education, Science and Arts. I will not take any lectures from the Minister about that.
I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady does not want to run the system from Whitehall and that she supports dialogue. That is good news. Certainly, the hon. Lady is well placed to argue that case with her experience in local government. However, she did not face the argument about the education council. She is complacent about the state of the educational partnership and the Government's relationship with local authorities and teachers, which is in a bad state. In fact, there is a major breakdown of consensus in our education system. That is one reason why we have argued for an education council with representatives of the major interests on it. It would agree on and debate the major educational issues.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 301.

Division No. 282]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Buchan, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clay, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Conlan, Bernard


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M.





Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Martin, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsty)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Nellist, David


Ewing, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Park, George


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Forrester, John
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, W. E.
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Godman, Dr Norman
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rowlands, Ted


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Home Robertson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hoyle, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Hon Greville
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Tinn, James


Lambie, David
Torney, Tom


Lamond, James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leadbitter, Ted
Wareing, Robert


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
White, James


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Loyden, Edward
Woodall, Alec


McCartney, Hugh
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh



McKelvey, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Ron Davies and


McTaggart, Robert
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogato)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, William


Ashby, David
Best, Keith


Aspinwall, Jack
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Blackburn, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter






Body, Sir Richard
Hannam, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Harvey, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Haselhurst, Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hawksley, Warren


Bright, Graham
Hayes, J.


Brinton, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayward, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John
Henderson, Barry


Bruinvels, Peter
Hickmet, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hicks, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Hill, James


Bulmer, Esmond
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Howard, Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cockeram, Eric
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Colvin, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cope, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Crouch, David
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knox, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dicks, Terry
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawler, Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Robert
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Durant, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Anthony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Macfarlane, Neil


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Maclean, David John


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Galley, Roy
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Gow, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malone, Gerald


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mather, Carol


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony





Miller, Hal (B grove)
Shersby, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Moate, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Monro, Sir Hector
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moore, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Speller, Tony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Spencer, Derek


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mudd, David
Squire, Robin


Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Norris, Steven
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Osborn, Sir John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Pollock, Alexander
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Powley, John
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


Price, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Proctor, K. Harvey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waddington, David


Raffan, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitney, Raymond


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Yeo, Tim


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

REVIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

`It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to review the progress made by local education authorities in implementing those sections of the 1981 Education Act which are concerned with the provision of special education'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 8—Further education for young people with special educational needs—
'In subsection (1) of section 20 of the Education Act 1981 the words "and is registered as a pupil at a school" shall be omitted.'.
New clause 9 — Appeals procedure for parents of children with special educational needs—
`For subsections (4) to (7) of section 8 of the Education Act 1981 there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(4) The decision of an appeal committee shall be binding on the local education authority by or on whose behalf the statement under appeal was made.
(5) In any case where an appeal committee confirm the decision of a local education authority as to the special educational provision to be made for the child the appellant may appeal in writing to the Secretary of State.
(6) On an appeal under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State may, after consulting the local education authority concerned—

(a) confirm the special educational provision specified in the statement;
(b) amend the statement so far as it specifies the special educational provision and make such other consequential amendments to the statement as he considers appropriate; or
(c) direct the local education authority to cease to maintain the statement".'.

Mr. Bennett: I shall try to be brief as we have a great deal to cover in the Bill.
New clause 7 deals with the provision of special education and asks the Government to undertake a review of the workings of the Education Act 1981. No doubt the Minister will counter by stating that the Government always have the legislation under review. However, I believe that there is a strong argument in favour of a specific review of the workings of the 1981 Act. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he will spend a little time explaining how he believes that the legislation is working. There is much evidence that the predictions of the Opposition when the 1981 Act was passed— that the legislation would not work unless the Government came up with extra resources to make it work —have been proved accurate for many local authorities.
It is amazing that the Government can dream up substantial extra sums of money for the new city technology colleges, yet they cannot find any extra money to make the Education Act 1981 work. That is a sign of the Government's priorities. The Government have opted for that gimmick rather than making sure that those youngsters who are born handicapped or who acquire handicaps have extra funding to ensure that they can be integrated into and obtain the full benefit from main stream schools.
I would be especially interested to hear the Government's statistics on the way in which the statements are made in local authorities. My impression is that the statements are made in a very haphazard way. A few local authorities have a good record in ensuring that statements are made on all the children who need statements, that the statements are made as early as possible and that the statements are of a high standard. However, I am aware that some local authorities seem to be making no statements or are making statements when children have reached the ages of seven, eight, or nine, when the problems of handicap have been obvious for many years. These children should have been receiving special assistance at an earlier stage.
I also have some evidence that one or two local authorities are making statements not in relation to the needs of the youngster but in relation to the resources that they have to implement those statements. If a local authority has a shortage of a specific form of special education, it delays making statements for the children who might need that form of special education to avoid drawing attention to the fact that it lacks provision. That is outrageous. We should have a clear undertaking from the Government that they expect local authorities to make statements on all children, when appropriate, that they expect statements to be made promptly, and that, where there is clear evidence from the statements that a special form of education is needed—in a special school or in a mainstream school with special back-up — the resources are provided so that the statement can be fulfilled. I hope that the Government can provide information on that matter. I believe that statements are not being made in the best possible way in many authorities.
I also hope that the Government will take the opportunity to tell us whether they feel that there are sufficient educational psychologists in training or within the service who can contribute to the statements. There is evidence of a shortage of the professionals needed to make statements, and that is one reason why there is such an uneven provision.
Will the Minister give us a clear statement about the education of the deaf and the training of teachers? I know that the Minister has been strongly lobbied on that issue, but there is still confusion about the Government's intentions. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us more information about that.
I am sure that the Minister will remember, from the proceedings on the Education Act 1980, that I have a specific interest in the problems of dyslexia. I am pleased that the British Dyslexia Association has received a great deal of publicity during this month. However, there is still insufficient knowledge about the problems of dyslexia, and in many local authorities there is an unwillingness to provide resources to ensure that youngsters with reading difficulties and, in some instances, acute spelling difficulties, receive the assistance necessary to take full advantage of mainstream education.
I would like the Minister to comment on many other aspects of special education. It is sad that we have to look for a device such as this Bill to provide a brief debate on special education in schools and that we cannot have more parliamentary time to discuss these matters.
We must, however, consider the issue of post-16 provision. I support the Liberal party's new clause on this subject. It is important that we make proper provision for post-16 education for children with special handicaps. I have visited many colleges of further education and witnessed some very imaginative schemes offering further education for these children. The schemes look impressive. However, for all those impressive further education schemes there are youngsters who are denied access to a college or to courses in their localities. Provision for 16 to 19-year-olds should be universally available to handicapped youngsters. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear statement about provision in that area.
New clause 9 relates to the appeals procedure. We argued about such a provision at great length in the proceedings on the Education Act 1981. We said that parents who were dissatisfied with the school recommended by a local authority for a child upon whom a statement


had been made should have the same rights of appeal as the parents of a child who had not had a statement made upon him. We failed to persuade the Government then. I hope that they will give this point further thought now.
The appeals procedure on the choice of schools has worked reasonably well. It is totally illogical — if the Government want children with special needs to be integrated into mainstream education—that parents of handicapped children should be denied an appeals procedure. I hope that the Government will consider that point sympathetically and say that there is no reason why the parents of a child for whom a statement as been made should not have the same rights to exercise an appeal as the parents of a child who has not received a statement.
If the appeals panels have sufficient skill and judgment to decide whether a school is full, they have sufficient judgment to decide whether the local authority's proposal for a child is valid or whether the parents' proposal about the school is valid. It is an insult to the parents, to the handicapped child and to the appeals panels for the Government to insist that an appeal cannot be made.
I hope that the Minister will give us a clear account of the way in which the Government see the Education Act 1981 developing. I hope that he will tell us what the Government are doing to find resources and then tell us that the Government will insist that there is universal provision for 16 to 19-year-old children with special needs and accede to the request for an appeals procedure.

Mr. Freud: I support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). New clauses 8 and 9 repeat the principles of the Handicapped Young Persons Bill which I moved in May last year in an attempt to improve the law in relation to young people with special educational needs.
New clauses 8 and 9 represent two changes to the last great Education Act— that of 1981—which is likely to be the only important Education Act of this decade. The first change concerns young people aged 16 to 19 in the special needs category, who currently receive the roughest deal, although Warnock indentified this group as a priority area and stated that provision for these young people was "in general manifestly inadequate" and that if nothing was done all earlier efforts "may come to nothing".
The problem is that the provisions of the 1981 Act, specifically those concerning the central protection offered to the child by the statement, apply only so long as the child or young person is receiving education at school. Young people in further education thus lack a vital protection. Even though Ministers have said that the 1944 Act imposes a legal duty on local education authorities in respect of these young people, the loophole remains. Recent examples of the problems concern young people who have faced charges for courses at institutions of further education. Integration should give all in this age group the same legal status, but at the moment it is certainly not clear that that is so.
The problem is not merely theoretical. The National Bureau for Handicapped Students informs me that there are cases outstanding in which the statement process has gone awry for the young people concerned, usually but not solely where out-county placements, and therefore financial judgments, are involved. For example, two

young people in Bedfordshire who are deaf are currently at an out-county residential institution without knowing the results of their statements and thus without knowing whether finance will be provided by the local education authority.
The second change concerns an aspect to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred — the appeals procedure for parents who are dissatisfied with the statement that they receive from the local education authority about their child. Under the 1981 Act, parents can appeal to an appeals tribunal. The tribunal can listen, cluck with sympathy and agree with the parents, but it cannot take any action. It can merely confirm the statement or send it back, but if the tribunal refuses to uphold the statement the local education authority does not have to change it. Although the parents can now go to the Secretary of State, the Minister will know that very few do so and it is my contention that they face what amounts to legal discrimination, especially as we all know how long the Department takes to reach a decision and how hard it is to persuade it to overrule a local education authority especially when financial considerations are involved.
New clause 9 would give parents in this situation the same rights as are provided by the 1980 Act for parents dissatisfied about the choice of school. I hope that the Minister will answer this question. What is the sense in the tribunal sending back the statement and the education authority merely repeating something that the parents do not want to hear and which makes them manifestly unhappy? What is the sense in employing the expertise of a tribunal if it can make no positive or constructive contribution to the proceedings? What is the point of the whole exercise? Why will not the Minister accept these new clauses which seek to end discrimination against children with special needs?
During the passage of the 1981 legislation the Government's stock answer was that there would be financial implications, but that has never seemed an adequate reason for denying equal treatment before the law or for weighting things so much against those with special needs. Lady Warnock has said that integration without finance is inoperable and all members of the Committee in 1981 were saddened by the Government's refusal to fund the 1981 Act. The Government must think again and I hope that they will do so sympathetically in relation to these new clauses.

Mr. Dunn: I am delighted to respond to this short debate initiated by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). Before making my general comments, I should remind the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East that Lady Warnock and the report which bears her name made the point that it would take time to implement some of the findings.
7.45 pm
The background to this aspect of the Bill is as follows. The Government have funded three major research projects relating to aspects of progress made by local education authorities in implementing the 1981 Act. Like both hon. Members who have spoken, I served on the Committee dealing with that legislation so perhaps, like Siamese triplets, we are doomed to spend our time together. As the House knows, all three projects were to last three years, after which a report would be prepared


and presented to a major seminar at London university later this year to publicise the findings. The Government intend to review both the guidance to local education authorities and the legislation itself in the light of those findings to see whether amendments are necessary. Such a review is clearly a major undertaking and is bound to take a little time, but in view of the work in hand I hope that hon. Members will agree that there is no need to lay upon the Secretary of State a statutory duty to carry out a review that is already well advanced.
I appreciate the aim of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East in new clause 8 to widen the scope of the 1981 Act to cover not only children under the age of 19 who are registered pupils in schools but also those with special educational needs who, at the age of 16, transfer to courses at colleges of further education. I remind the Opposition, however, that the provisions of the 1981 Act are framed in terms of schools, so to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective would require far more amendments to that Act than are proposed in the new clause. For example, the definition of special educational needs in section I would have to be amended, the duties placed on local education authorities and school governors in section 2 would have to be widened and consequential amendments would be required to sections 3 and 4 as well as to the special education need regulations of 1983.

Mr. Freud: rose—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Dunn: I am overwhelmed by the interest shown. I give way to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East.

Mr. Freud: Has the Minister tried putting that argument to a handicapped child with special educational needs?

Mr. Dunn: I acknowledge receipt of that message and give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the only problem is the drafting, there is a simple solution. The Minister can simply accept the new clause and put the wording right when it goes hack to the House of Lords. As he has had the entire recess to consider the new clauses, he had only to ask his own draftsmen to put it right and to draft the necessary consequential amendments. It is a bit thick to suggest at this stage that the only reason for refusing the new clauses is that the wording is not right. The Minister knows that if the Government want to do something they can perfectly well do it, so come on now.

Mr. Dunn: I am invited to "come on", an invitation which I note with some interest, but I remind the House that an hour or so ago the Government were admonished for introducing a new clause on which there had not been time to consult. It is not fair for the Opposition now to invite us to take their new clauses at face value. There must be some consistency. The argument should not alter just because we have moved to another group of amendments.
I acknowledge the genuine and personal concern that both hon. Members have shown in the needs of those with learning difficulties or handicaps of one kind or another and I undertake to examine and review what has been said. In particular, I shall write to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about the problems of the deaf and the training of their teachers. I do not believe, however, that

this Bill is the appropriate vehicle to achieve the objectives listed by the Opposition, although I appreciate their right to list them even though we have cantered around this course several times before. I undertake to examine the points made and to write, but I cannot give any undertaking that will lead to any further changes in the Bill.
The hon. Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East and for Denton and Reddish referred to the role of the local appeal committee and asked why there were differences of emphasis as well as technical differences.. In some respects, while the role of the local appeal committee in relation to admission to mainstream schools and to the provision necessary for children with special educational needs may seem similar, in practice they may be very different. When hearing appeals under the 1980 Act, the committee will normally be faced with the relatively straightforward matter of the choice of school and related issues. The assumption is that unless a selective system is in operation, ordinary schools are suitable for all children in the appropriate age group.
That is not the case in a dispute over special educational provisions. Decisions on location will be influenced not only by the availability of suitable staff and equipment but by the availability of special services which are not purely educational, in other words medical, nursing and social services, any of which may be determining factors in deciding the appropriate placement. It is therefore likely that disputes between local education authorities and parents may involve the appeal committee examining a wide range of specialist advice, particularly in drawn-out and complex cases. I believe that we have reached the right balance but I do understand, and up to a point, sympathise with, the concerns expressed by other hon. Members.
I have referred to the review of the provisions of the Education Act 1981. The Government are committed to the provisions of the 1981 Act although we are aware of some issues which need to be considered. I hope that Opposition Members will be prepared to agree that it would be helpful at this stage not to prejudge the outcome of our considerations. I can readily assure the House that a review of the provisions of that Act is already planned and, in the light of my assurance, perhaps the Opposition will withdraw their new clause and await my reply to the points they have raised.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister's reply is a little disappointing. I appreciate his idea of writing to individual hon. Members about the points that they have raised. I hope that he will add to his list my question about the number of educational psychologists. Is their number sufficient, and are there sufficient in training so that statements can be made promptly?
One reason for debating this issue in the House is to make information available to a much wider public than would have access to the correspondence. The Government should look carefully at their review. I welcome the fact that the Government have funded research into three local authorities—

Mr. Dunn: Five authorities.

Mr. Bennett: Even if it is five authorities, the fact that research is being done into local authorities immediately distorts the situation within those local authorities. The fact that someone outside is taking an interest in a particular problem encourages those in the local authority.
I had hoped that the Government could have backed up their in-depth review of those five authorities with a general survey of how well statements are prepared in the country as a whole. I had hoped also that the Minister would illustrate some of the problems which are becoming evident so that there might be a wider debate within the country.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response to new clauses 8 and 9. He does not seem to appreciate that substantial problems face people aged over 16. It was a lame excuse to say that he had not had the time, or that we had not tabled the amendments in the correct form. These amendments were tabled before the summer recess in the names of Members of the Liberal party which would have given the Minister ample time to discuss the matter with us had he been seriously concerned about the issue. The Government seem happy to discuss various measures in the Bill with their hon. Friends. It would have been a great service to those of us involved with special education if the Government had spent a little time discussing post-16 provision.

Mr. Dunn: Believing as I do in the access of all Members of the House to Ministers, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that at no time did he make a request to see me on this point. If he did so, I have no recollection of it.

Mr. Bennett: I certainly did not ask to see the Minister. The amendment was tabled not in my name but in the names of Members of the Liberal party. It was, however, a matter on which in Committee we pressed the Government to make concessions. At that stage, we received no sympathy from the Government. We tried to persuade them to accept one or two minor things to assist the speed at which this legislation could pass through the House. The Minister could therefore have met us on this issue if he had been sympathetic.
The same applies to appeals. It is unsatisfactory for parents to feel that, even if they win an appeal, they still may not have a guarantee that their child will go to the right school. Instead, there may be a long bureacractic process involving the Secretary of State with the possibility that the child will be awarded a place at a particular school when it is no longer appropriate. Children with special educational needs need that special provision at the appropriate moment. If assistance is given when it is most needed, integration into mainstream schools may well be speeded up.
The Government's answers have been most unsatisfactory. Since the 1981 Act was passed, we have had no sign that the Government will provide the resources to turn the recommendations of the Warnock report into a reality. We shall therefore divide the House on the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 296.

Division No. 283]
[8.00pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Ashdown, Paddy
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Beith, A. J.





Bell, Stuart
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Leighton, Ronald


Bidwell, Sydney
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blair, Anthony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Boyes, Roland
Livsey, Richard


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Loyden, Edward


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McGuire, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
McKelvey, William


Buchan, Norman
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell, Ian
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Marek, Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Martin, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, William


Cunningham, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eadie, Alex
Park, George


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Ewing, Harry
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Faulds, Andrew
Radice, Giles


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Randall, Stuart


Fisher, Mark
Raynsford, Nick


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Ms Jo


Forrester, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Foulkes, George
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rooker, J. W.


Freud, Clement
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Garrett, W. E.
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Godman, Dr Norman
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gourlay, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Snape, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Soley, Clive


Heffer, Eric S.
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Home Robertson, John
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hoyle, Douglas
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Janner, Hon Greville
Wareing, Robert


John, Brynmor
Welsh, Michael


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
White, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wigley, Dafydd


Kennedy, Charles
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Winnick, David


Lambie, David
Woodall, Alec


Lamond, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian






Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr Ron Davies, and



Mr. Allen McKay


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aitken, Jonathan
Fallon, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Farr, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Favell, Anthony


Amess, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher, Alexander


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Galley, Roy


Baldry, Tony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Gow, Ian


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, William
Grant, Sir Anthony


Best, Keith
Greenway, Harry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gregory, Conal


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Blackburn, John
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ground, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Grylls, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harvey, Robert


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brinton, Tim
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawksley, Warren


Browne, John
Hayes, J.


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Barry


Burt, Alistair
Hickmet, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Cockeram, Eric
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jackson, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Crouch, David
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan





Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lightbown, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Peter
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lord, Michael
Ryder, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Macfarlane, Neil
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Silvester, Fred


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sims, Roger


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speed, Keith


Malone, Gerald
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spencer, Derek


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sumberg, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steven
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Osborn, Sir John
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walters, Dennis


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watson, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pollock, Alexander
Whitney, Raymond


Porter, Barry
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Michael


Proctor, K. Harvey
Yeo, Tim


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raffan, Keith



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Renton, Tim
Mr. Robert Boscawen &amp;


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

PROCEDURE ON CLOSURES

'The Secretary of State shall, in considering proposals required to be submitted for his approval under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980—

(a) give full reasons in writing for his decision, subject to meeting the requirement of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and the necessary confidentiality between officials and ministers;
(b) announce his decision within six months of the date of such submission of proposals to him or, in exceptional circumstances where that time limit cannot be met, make a statement within six months as to the reasons for the delay giving a date at which the decision will be made.'.—[Mr. Freud.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Freud: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 15— School closures and reorganizations
`It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State or any local education authority making a proposal which falls to him for decision under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 to make available to any statutory objector:—

(a) the response of the local education authority to the written objections of the statutory objector.
(b) all documents and minutes presented by the local education authority to the Secretary of State in support of the proposal.
(c) copies of any questions asked by the Secretary of State relevant to his consideration of the proposal and the reply of the local education authority.'.

New clause 22—Procedure on closures (No. 3)—
'When the Secretary of State, in considering proposals required to be submitted for his approval under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, overturns a recommendation of a local education authority, that local education authority shall have the right to appeal against his decision, provided that notice of such an appeal is given in writing within 28 days.'.
New clause 34—Procedures on closures—
'When the Secretary of State, in considering proposals required to be submitted for his approval under section 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, overturns a recommendation of a local education authority, the Secretary of State's decision shall stand for a period of at least five years.'.

Mr. Freud: The new clause is the latest in a long series of attempts during the passage of the Bill to clarify and improve the procedure of school reorganisation. I was fortunate in having the new clause selected by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would be foolish if I did not press it to a vote.
Although we recognise that there is an attempt at a new regime in Elizabeth house following the exposure of the 14 months' average delay in decisions, two main problems remain and the new clause attempts to meet both of them. The first problem is that of further information, both on the local education authority's case for reorganisation and on the Secretary of State's reasons for it. That must be fair to objectors and local communities. Applying the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 is the moderate and sensible way to achieve this openness. We discussed this issue at considerable length in Committee, but the new clause also preserves confidentiality between Ministers and officials, so that that can no longer be an excuse.
The new clause places a time limit of six months on the Secretary of State's decisions or, where that would be

difficult, an obligation to state what is going on and why there is a delay. Again, we have discussed that matter at length. It is extraordinarily unhelpful to the well-being of a school to have educational decisions hanging over it. It is our ambition to speed up the process and to make it clear to all those who are involved.
In the context of the pressure to remove surplus places and the intense local feelings aroused by reorganisation proposals, decisions made in good time and in the open will, almost inevitably, be better decisions than those which are covered up and which spend a long time in the melting pot.
I know that the Minister will be pleased to hear that, in the next few months I shall visit him with two groups of constituents whose schools are being reorganised. I maintain that openness in one case will help in all cases. When criteria become known and procedures are better understood, it will be helpful generally to education. Decisions made under these new arrangements will also even up the legal status of objectors and proposers by giving the parents the right to know on what basis the decision has been made. At present, the Secretary of State need give no account of his activities while having the power drastically to affect the life of local communities. We need to reassess the balance betweeen efficiency in reorganisation and the rights of the individual. This new modest clause will improve both those matters.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I join the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) in supporting the new clause. The Opposition have also tabled other new clauses. When one is faced with the question whether a school should close or not, considerable passions are usually aroused. The Secretary of State has a duty to reach a decision quickly, to do it fairly, and to be seen to do it fairly.
The problem now is that no one knows whether the Secretary of State has reached a decision fairly or whether someone had a quiet word with him and he took rather more notice of a little bit of political nobbling than of the case presented by the local education authority. It does not matter how much the Minister protests, or how much hon. Members protest on his behalf that he would not be subject to any political lobbying behind the scenes and that he would make a fair decision. Unless all the information relating to the decision is made public, he will never convince those who are dissatisfied with the final decision. It will often be difficult to please such people, but it is important that we make it clear to them that justice is done. The only way to do that is for all the information that the Minister used to make his decision to be made public and for the decision and the reasons for it to be conveyed by the Minister.
As the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East suggested, once the information is made public, it will help case law to be developed and people will know the criteria that the Minister is taking into account, those that weigh with him and those that do not. On the whole, it will discourage people from putting forward arguments which are unlikely to carry weight. Therefore, it should reduce the burden of papers that the Minister must consider. It will also help local authorities when drawing up plans to understand what is in the Minister's mind when reaching decisions. They will take that into account and tend not


to put forward proposals which would be unacceptable to the Minister. This sensible group of amendments will ensure that justice is seen to be done.
They will, on the whole, speed up the process. It is unfortunate that the Government have seen fit to reject them so far. However, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister may have second thoughts.

Mr. Cyril Smith: My support for the new clause is based on recent constituency experience.
I was delighted to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who spoke for the official Opposition, because it would appear that this new clause is to be considered on its merits rather than on the source from which it emanates. Therefore, we may on this occasion persuade the official Opposition to vote for an alliance amendment. That would be historic. The fact is that often the Opposition speak in support of our amendments but do not bother to troop into the Lobbies.
In my constituency, two types of reorganisation are pending. One is the reorganisation of Roman Catholic education, about which I brought a deputation of parents to meet the Minister and he kindly received us. That was many months ago, but we have still had no decision or news. I am not complaining about that, because I suspect that in this case no news is good news. None the less the parents of Catholic children in Rochdale would like to know whether the Government mean what they say. The Government have said constantly, and again at the recent Conservative party conference, that parental rights are what matter and that they want to take into account the wishes arid views of parents.
In the case of the Catholic reorganisation in Rochdale, 97 per cent. of the parents have signed petitions which I and the parents delivered to the Minister. Those petitions opposed the Catholic diocesan proposals for the reorganisation of Catholic education in Rochdale. It is extremely interesting, because the Bishop of Salford, to his utter disgrace, refuses to tell the parents of the children in his Catholic schools what his proposals are and what his reaction is to their objections.
The Minister kindly arranged for the parents to see the local authority's objections, and we are grateful to him for that, but the parents of Catholic children in Rochdale have no idea what the bishop's reaction to their views has been. The bishop constantly refuses to disclose that. It is an absolute scandal, and the bishop should be ashamed of himself. I hope that Catholics will remember that I voted for the ten-minute Bill earlier today, but that is beside the point. The behaviour of the Bishop of Salford on the reorganisation of Catholic education in Rochdale has been an absolute and utter disgrace.
I hope that if this new clause is accepted, it will result in the Minister disclosing not only his reasons for arriving at a decision, but the advice and information given to him by bodies which are directly responsible — such as diocesan education authorities through the bishops —and why, in this case, I hope, he has rejected their advice and decided to support 97 per cent. of the parents.

Mr. Freud: Does my hon. Friend agree that delaying a decision has a very damaging effect on a school? Faced with uncertainty, many parents would rather send their children to another school or to a private sector school.

The longer the delay, the more damage that is done to a school. Ultimately, the reorganisation is carried out despite the merits of the argument.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is correct.
Perhaps I can say with some modesty that I have been a member of the Rochdale education committee for 23 years, and its chairman for eight years. Indeed, I piloted the last reorganisation scheme through Rochdale town council. I know how important it is for parents to he kept posted of what is happening. Constant delays affect riot only parents, but staff morale. People are not sure what is going to happen, when it is going to happen, or whether their jobs are safe, and so on. Such delays are detrimental to the education of children.
My local authority is about to submit its proposals to the Minister. The Labour local authority in Rochdale ganged up with the Tories, forming an unholy coalition on education. The proposals put forward are scandalous and a disgrace. During the weekend I saw copies of a private document that was circulated to Labour councillors by chief officers. The document is marked "Private and confidential", but it says that if reorganisation goes ahead the education service in Rochdale will be harmed. Today, I took great pleasure in sending the Minister a copy of the private advice given to the Labour group by the professional staff in Rochdale.
Rochdale local authority intends to spend between £50,000 and £100,000 on trying to persuade parents to accept their proposals to carve up the education system. It has appointed public relations consultants to spend public money on selling the scheme to the public and parents of Rochdale. But no professional advice is available to the scheme's opponents other than that given voluntarily. They have no opportunity to state their case, and so on. Consequently, there will be a long, drawn-out battle. The Minister is bound to reject the scheme. Apart from anything else, it provides 1,800 places more than is required by the number of children in Rochdale. The scheme openly says that.
The Minister cannot accept the scheme, yet £100,000 of ratepayers' money will be spent on selling it. Moreover, the chairman of the education committee in Rochdale has been given two days' paid leave a week by Rossendale education authority in order to carry out his duties. That is happening although we are always being told that there is not enough money for education or for children's books. Apparently, however, teachers can be given two days' paid leave a week to sit in an office making sure that a chief education officer, who earns nearly £30,000 a year, is doing his job. I do not know where the devil we are going.
The Government should seriously consider the new clause. It gives parents and the public an opportunity to know the reasons for a Minister's decision. That will at least help another authority to have some idea of what is acceptable to him. Exceptionally, the Minister will not be able to make a decision in six months. But he can at least give reasons for the delay. I strongly support the new clause.

Mr. Holt: Few hon. Members can have been unaware, in the past 48 hours, of a little baby in the north-east of England called Nicola Bell. She was born very prematurely, but not as prematurely as another baby who is still alive in the north-east.
I have begun on that rather off-beat note because, when the law on social service benefits was framed, it was not


thought possible for such a premature baby to live. In the 1950s, the medical and legal professions were wrong, and as a result that mother is now deprived of benefits. Laws last for a long time, but things do change. Consequently, we must be careful when framing our education law.
I tabled an amendment, because only three years ago a school in my constituency was submited for closure to the then Secretary of State. The law is not restrictive, so a vindictive local authority can resubmit its application for closure every year. That has a detrimental effect on the school and the area.
Huntcliff school in Saltburn was earmarked for closure in 1982 by the local education authority. In 1983, the Secretary of State said that the school did not meet the criteria for closure, because it was a school of excellence providing everything for the youth of that town. But less than three years later that school had been resubmitted for closure although there has been no variation in the ground rules. I have every confidence that the new Secretary of State will reject the local education authority's proposals because there is no justification for them. But unless the Government table an amendment similar to mine, that local education authority can submit that school for closure year after year until the parents and those fighting to keep the school open capitulate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Minister had had to give his reasons in full in the first place, that local authority might not have been tempted to resubmit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby to ensure that people have the necessary information.

Mr. Holt: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen. I said that, as the school met the criteria of excellence, and as nothing has changed, I have every confidence that it will stay open. The former Secretary of State made that clear when the proposals were rejected. But for how long will my constituents have to be subjected to this form of Chinese water torture, that goes drip, drip, drip, year after year? My amendment would at least mean that there would be a five-year period when parents need not worry about closure.
I do not think that five years is an unreasonable period and once a determination has been given it should be valid for that period. I recognise that when one specifies a period one can always argue the case for a shorter or longer period. My argument for five years is based on the fact that it is approximately the length of time that children would stay in that school. Once parents have decided on a school for their children they should be free of the worry that the school will be closed half way through their children's academic career.
8.30 pm
If a school is closed and the children are dispersed to other schools, those other schools are also unsure what will happen. There is a need for the Minister to make a decision and to make it stick for at least five years. Unless that is done we are subjected, year after year, as in Saltburn, to an education authority which can, justifiably, put the same school forward for closure year after year. By doing so the authority avoids any argument about closing other schools—perhaps those which ought to be closed or put under review. If the Minister accepts my amendment, attention would be focused on the other

schools which, at the moment, are not under the microscope because the LEA, in its wisdom, decides not to put them there.
The north-east of England is already ravaged. Parents are worried enough as to what employment their children will have at the end of their academic careers. To subject them and their children to the worry of school closure is wrong. I am confident that the 1983 decision on Huntcliff school will be reaffirmed when the case comes to the Secretary of State this year. But thereafter, I would like the Minister to state that legislation will be introduced so that a five-year moratorium will elapse before schools are subject to further consideration.

Sir Raymond Gower: When there is a proposal to close a school, whatever educational advantages may accrue—we all recognise that there may be great educational advantages—a high proportion of such proposals tend to be unpopular with parents.
Other reasons may prompt the closure of a school—accessibility to homes in rural areas, the decay of villages and so on — but parents feel strongly about these matters. If the Bill is not amended in some way, will the Minister explain to what extent the need to satisfy and explain the decisions to parents and thus lessen their apprehensions and anxieties will be adequately covered?

Mr. Dunn: The debate tonight is an echo of the debate that we had in Standing Committee and I do not object to that. I note the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) and I shall return to that shortly.
I must point out to Members on both sides that I spend a great deal of time receiving Members who bring deputations to me about certain proposals affecting schools in their constituencies. In common with the officials at the Department of Education and Science, I am conscious of the time that some proposals take to be concluded, as measured from the date of their publication to the time of the decision. In many local authorities the debate has gone on longer than that because all local authorities, if not most — one or two perhaps are different—are facing falling rolls in their schools. We must be concerned with the range of curriculum on offer, the staffing of schools and the cost of maintaining schools which are a third or half empty.
No one likes to close a school and parents do not like it if their school is closed. However, the local authority has a duty, both in terms of the expenditure that it is responsible for and its commitment to fulfil its own policies and the policies of the Government. The procedures that were adopted in the Education Act 1980 were a substantial improvement on the appeal procedures which obtained before. I cannot comment on those previous procedures because I was not party to the enactment of earlier legislation or to any of the practices which existed prior to 1980.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made a passionate speech but, as he knows, I cannot comment in public about any proposals which are before the Secretary of State. To do so would be injudicious, as Gilbert and Sullivan would be wont to say. I am sure that the points the hon. Gentleman raised are not just for my hearing. I dare say his comments will receive a wide readership in south-east Lancashire—or the area formerly known as south-east Lancashire before local government reorganisation.
Parents have a chance to state their objections to the proposals clearly and categorically both in writing and verbally. The deputations which I meet state their objections to certain proposals affecting a school or range of schools which are represented by hon. Members. Deputations take advantage of the time with me to make clear their concern about the provision of education in their community. These deputations are aware of the criteria which are worked to and the policy statements of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This information is obtained from the guidelines which are issued by the Department, the interchange of views and advice given by officials to local education authorities and the guidance, advice and criteria which are published in a variety of circulars based upon our views. Such information is complemented by Ministers' speeches.
The position is not satisfactory and Members of Parliament have a role to play. On a number of occasions when a decision is apparently uncontroversial—I am not speaking about any particular decision—a Member of Parliament may be persuaded of the need for a deputation to go to Elizabeth house. Consequently, the decision on the proposal may well be delayed for three months if the points raised by the deputation are clearly at odds with the information that we have to hand.
I am under advice from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud)—I will not say Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym): he is quite a different fish. One may telescope the time scale and provide a let-out by explaining why we were delaying over a decision. There are occasions when deputations make valid points which need to be checked with the diocesan authority or the local education authority.
If we were provided with a let-out route and could state that we had taken our time because of compelling reasons — information that we did not have before had to be checked or information received was inaccurate—what would be the mechanism by which our statements were proved? Would I he required to appear at the Bar of the House and to give reasons why I am late or the Secretary of State is late? Would I be required to turn up from time to time to apologise to Members of Parliament and say, "I am so sorry, Mr. Speaker, that we were delayed".
I hope the House will accept from me, because I am one of the nicest people I know, that we do spend as much time as we could to bring decisions to an early conclusion. From time to time, compelling reasons — sometimes, perhaps, a late intervention by hon. Members—cause a decision to be somewhat delayed. In case he feels guilty, I am not saying that the hon. Member for Rochdale did so. He was, in fact, a model Member, leading a model deputation—which is not to comment on the merits or demerits of the case.
Before the summer recess, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a scrutiny of the procedures followed by the Department would be undertaken by Mr. Mitchell, whose report is expected shortly. Changes in procedures may well be adopted in the light of that report.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister intend the report to be published?

Mr. Dunn: I will take that up with the Secretary of State. Junior Ministers have limited powers of action, but I shall ensure that the hon. Member's intervention is

drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. I am sure that the hon. Member will table a question fairly soon to ensure that I provide an answer.
The Government have some sympathy with the motives of those who have spoken, but I cannot accede to their requests now. We are awaiting a report from an eminent and respected public figure and will take account of his recommendations.
I understand the motive to which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred. It would be injudicious for local authorities to keep making the same proposals. I cannot comment further on that. I cannot, however, accept that it would be wise to fetter local authorities' freedom to present proposals. Proposals under sections 12 to 15 may fail to gain approval for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from the educational to the purely procedural. The problem which prompts the original proposal, which is usually a decline in pupil numbers, will remain in many cases. It would damage the efficiency of the education service and be contrary to the Government's policy of removing surplus places to prevent authorities which consider it necessary from presenting alternative proposals. Political control of an authority might change. That happens from time to time. It is regrettable when my party loses control. Proposals made by an outgoing administration might be withdrawn by the incoming one. That may cause delay, confusion and a strain for parents.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend anticipate anything in Mr. Mitchell's report requiring legislation to be implemented?

Mr. Dunn: That depends on what Mr. Mitchell has to say. No avenue can be ruled out, but I do not want to pursue that, enticing as it may be.
I attach a great deal of importance to parental involvement. That is why we take special account of the process of consultation. There must be an opportunity for the views of individuals, institutions, political parties, elected members of authorities and those of neighbouring authorities to have sight of proposals which affect a school.
Most of the deputations that I see are composed of parents, parent governors, governors and councillors, who may themselves have children at a school. It will be difficult to streamline the procedure by which views are made known by having mass interventions by various organisations at any stage. We rely heavily on the cooperation of hon. Members when they bring deputations to see Ministers.

Mr. Holt: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Government's case for not acceding to my proposal is that there is likely to be a change of political control? That is the only reason that he has put forward so far. An incoming administration could withdraw proposals, so the Government have not answered my case.

Mr. Dunn: With respect to my hon. Friend, I gave one or two other reasons why proposals might fail. One is that they are procedurally wrong. Law and regulation lay down what must happen when proposals for reorganisation are made known. An authority might make a mistake in its interpretation of those regulations. A proposal might he technically unsound. There might be problems about consultation. Information might be incorrect. There is a


variety of reasons why proposals might be rejected. The rejection letter from the Department states quite clearly why proposals are unsound.

Mr. Bill Michie: Political control of government may change. A future Labour Government may have a very different approach to the same problem.

Mr. Dunn: I dare say that the hon. Member is right. There are great differences between the parties in terms of attitudes towards schools, sixth forms and tertiary colleges.
I cannot accept the new clause and hope that it will not be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Freud: In the time-honoured words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply.
New Clause 10 is modest. We ask the Minister for no more than that he should give in writing reasons for his decision. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) argued in Committee, secrecy leads to rumour, and rumour leads to the break up of the well being of community. All that we want to know when there is a school closure or reorganisation is whether the reasons are financial, educational, political, to do with disenchantment of the teaching force or due to lack of safety of the building. The Minister must know that if such information is not given, the matter is talked about, the rumours stick and the people concerned are damaged. I cannot understand why the Minister is denying such an opportunity.

Mr. Steve Norris: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the main casualty are the Government whose decisions, being shrouded in secrecy, are open to the worst possible interpretation although they might be on sound educational ground?

Mr. Freud: I entirely agree. The new clause merely asks the Government to get a move on. They have agreed that 14 months, which was the norm for a decision, is too long.

Mr. Dunn: I think that the hon. Member will find that the average is six months. The norm is not 14 months.

Mr. Freud: I listened to the Minister. It was published that the Government were dissatisfied with the previous length of time and were trying to reduce it to six months. We were simply trying to enshrine six months in legislation. We were making available to the Minister the perfectly valid course of announcing after six months why a decision has not come to light. The community would be content to be told after six months that investigations were taking place, but would take another two or three months. However, just as people want to know the reasons for a closure, they will want to know when the reasons will be published.
I have no hesitation in pressing the new clause to a Division. I hope that Conservative Members who have listened to the debate will vote for our sensible and modest proposal.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 291.

Division No. 284]
[8.50 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Howells, Geraint


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hoyle, Douglas


Alton, David
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Ashdown, Paddy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Ashton, Joe
Janner, Hon Greville


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
John, Brynmor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barnett, Guy
Kennedy, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Lambie, David


Bell, Stuart
Lamond, James


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Leighton, Ronald


Blair, Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Loyden, Edward


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bruce, Malcolm
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buchan, Norman
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell, Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McTaggart, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McWilliam, John


Cartwright, John
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Martin, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Michie, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist. David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pavitt, Laurie


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Faulds, Andrew
Randall, Stuart


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Raynsford, Nick


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, George


Forrester, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foulkes, George
Rogers, Allan


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rooker, J. W.


Freud, Clement
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Garrett, W. E.
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gourlay, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Soley, Clive


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Strang, Gavin


Home Robertson, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)






Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael
Mr, Cyril Smith and


White, James
Mrs. Elizabeth Shields.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Ancram, Michael
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Farr, Sir John


Ashby, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher, Alexander


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baldry, Tony
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Galley, Roy


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, William
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Body, Sir Richard
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Browne, John
Hawksley, Warren


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayes, J.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Budgen, Nick
Hayward, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Henderson, Barry


Butterfill, John
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irving, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knowles, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Knox, David


Dunn, Robert
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman





Lang, Ian
Rhodes James. Robert


Latham, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rost, Peter


Lightbown, David
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCrindle, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Scott, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, David John
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Silvester, Fred


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sumberg, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steven
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walden, George


Osborn, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Watson, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watts, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Powley, John
Woodcock, Michael


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Yeo, Tim


Price, Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Proctor, K. Harvey



Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tellers for the Noes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Renton Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 13

PARENTAL PREFERENCES

`( ) The duty imposed on the governing body under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Education Act 1980 shall apply notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of that section if in the opinion of the governing body compliance with the preference would not prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources at its schoor.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a technical clause of a micro-incremental nature compared with the more ambitious new clause 27. It is important for thousands of parents throughout the country when they apply for their children to attend particular schools. It is important because the spirit of the Bill as I understand it, is to strengthen the position of parents in the education system.
The most important right of all for parents is the right to choose, and yet every year thousands of parents fail to get their children into the school of their choice. There is growing frustration in every constituency. The Minister will know the problems in my area. We have discussed the problems of Abbey school in the west of my constituency and of Whinfield school in the east. Schools are over-subscribed and parents cannot send their children to the schools of their choice. In desperation parents go to their Members of Parliament for advice.
Why does this happen? It is not because of the education system, but because of our 1980 Act which provides, not choice pure and simple, but heavily qualified preference. It allows a parent's preference to be overridden if the local education authority believes that compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of a sufficient education or the efficient use of resources within an education authority area as a whole.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what he said a few moments ago, the problem does not stem from the fact that a school is over-subscribed — because the headmaster and governors might be keen to taken on an additional two or three pupils—but because the local authority overrides the wishes of both school and parents?

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend, as always, puts the case slightly better than me, and has rightly identified the source of the problem. It is the extent to which the local wishes of schools and parents can be overridden.
Some six years on from the 1980 Act, it is obvious that the less popular schools have attracted fewer applications as more and more parents apply for the more popular schools. However, children are directed to the less popular schools where, every year, more and more places are, unfilled because the local education authority feels that the resources are not being efficiently used.
The proof that the system is not working lies in the number of appeals. My hon. Friend the Minister told me in answer to questions that there are some 10,000 appeals every year. Many more parents may not wish to put their children through the distress and agony of appeal. Even if the appeal is successful—and only half of them are—distress is still caused by the uncertainty. If the appeal is

unsuccessful, there is distress among children who are separated from their friends who have been successful. Indeed, brothers and sisters are separated as education authority after education authority declares as a matter of policy that the kinship connection will no longer apply, and that that in itself is a reason for overriding parental choice.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply a question of the distress caused or the popularity of a school, but one of educational standards? I know of children in my constituency who have a particular aptitude, and there may be a school that is strong in that area, but because the child is unable to attend that school the standard of education that he achieves in music, mathematics or whatever is not as high as it could otherwise have been. Therefore, in addition to the distress caused to children, educational standards are suffering.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend's remarks strengthen my case. They also strengthen my view that, if the 1980 Act is left unchanged, educational standards will not be maintained, the distress suffered will increase and the frustration of parents will multiply. If we do nothing to amend the Act, we shall do nothing to improve the attractiveness of the less popular schools, which will become even less popular and will receive fewer and fewer applications.
The purpose of my amendment is simple. I prepared it in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Education—ACE—which has done a great deal of work on school appeals and parental preference. The amendment would confine the operation of the veto to governors of a school and allow them to decide whether the addition of a few more pupils each term would prejudice the efficient use of resources, not within the entire county area, but at the school itself.

Mr. Norris: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem is that the defence of prejudice to efficient use of resources is trotted out by education committees as a standard defence, generally supporting a particular planned admission limit at a set level? The appeal is based on the idea that some additional proportion of children may be allowed without prejudice. Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be value in trying to define those limits of prejudice? I understand that many authorities consider that one extra pupil per form of entry is almost recognised as not constituting prejudice and that more than that would do so. Is there any value in going down that road to try to reduce much of the uncertainty and unsatisfactoriness of the present appeal system?

Mr. Fallon: Yes, I think that there would be considerable value in trying to devise limits to the exercise of that prejudice, but the framers of the 1980 legislation — I have read through the Hansard reports of the Committee proceedings of that measure—had it in mind that each case should be considered on its merits irrespective of the limit that had previously been devised.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that governing bodies of schools in his constituency, as in mine, are often most anxious to allow the extra one or two pupils that would be permitted but are overridden by the presiding authority?

Mr. Fallon: That is exactly the position. I think that my argument is becoming stronger as I continue to give way to my hon. Friends' interventions. I do not want to take too much of the time of the House, however, because there are many more debates to follow this one.
The purpose of the new clause is clear, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has had a great deal of time over the summer to think about it. I have had a great deal of time, too, to think of what arguments he can possibly devise to resist the clause. It cannot be said that the problem is minimal. There are 10,000 appeals every year, and I believe that that is 10,000 too many. Only half of the appeals are successful, and I cannot accept that that is satisfactory. All of them should be successful if we are interested in genuine parental choice.
Secondly, it cannot be said that the new clause destroys the arrangements for admission limits generally. That could be said, too, of the appeal procedure that is in the 1980 legislation. If an appeal is considered on its merits by the tribunal, as it should be, the school may then have to take an additional pupil over its limit. The 1980 Act preaches the admission limits arrangement. Thirdly, it cannot be said that the clause would harm the more popular schools. The governors themselves would have the power to refuse the upper second limit. That in their view would he unreasonable, would strain their resources and would prejudice the efficient use of resources at their school.
Finally, it cannot be said that the clause would interfere with the general county-wide assessment. The general effect on the wider system would be a matter for the local education authority to consider when it decided its original admissions policy. This is a simple and practical amendment that stands at the margin of choice, and if it is carried several thousand parents every year will benefit.

Mr. Alan Howarth: It has long been a principle that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. Those are the words of the White Paper "Better Schools" and not mine. The White Paper was a useful reaffirmation of a principle that has been honoured too much in the breach. The Government's 1980 legislation valuably strengthened the application of that principle but, unfortunately, it did not go far enough. Section 6(3)(a) of the 1980 Act contains a form of words that has allowed, once again, the officials to know best.
The exercise of choice by parents is a right that they value, and the more that they have of this right the more they value it. Where they do not have it, it does not mean that they do not want it. On the contrary, they do. The exercise of the right of choice must also have a beneficial effect on schools. Where the right operates effectively, it requires teachers to make their schools attractive to parents and children.
The right of choice is not always so popular with the producers of education. Life becomes a little untidy and unpredictable for administrators in areas where there is parental choice. From the point of view of some teachers, they ae exposed to an external evaluation that can make itself felt effectively, and that, too, can be somewhat uncomfortable. The right of parents to choose is bound to be tenuous enough in practice. In reality, in many places there is, only one school to which it is practical for parents to send their children. It is worth stressing in that context that school closures reduce choice. Each time a school

closes, the element of effective choice is further narrowed. That is just one reason why we should be sceptical about a policy of encouraging school closures.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend referred to the practical choice, the logistics, where there is perhaps, only one school to which a parent can send his child. Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) referred often occurs when someone new moves into the area? Obviously, that person wants to send his kid to the local school. In the interests of the kid, the headmaster and the Government are quite likely to say that that is a good idea, but the local authority steps in, ignores the declaration o human rights which says that parents have prior right to the choice of their children's education, and says, "No."

Mr. Howarth: I think that my hon. Friend is right. Too often, parental choice does not seem to be highly regarded by local education authoriies. In the same way, I think that, too often, the schools that are chosen for closure are the popular schools. I think that my hon. Friend suggested in his earlier intervention in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) that local education authorities are somewhat apt to alter planned admission levels to prop up the unpopular schools. We hear too many instances of that reported by the Inner London education authority, and recently I have heard it reported in Wiltshire. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minster will accept that the new clause will prevent that kind of practice and that it puts the onus on the schools to use their resources well and to give wider opportunity. I hope that he shall be able to look favourably on the new clause.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I do not wish to delay the House for long, because I think that we have two treats ahead of us—first, the forthcoming debate on the next batch of amendments and, secondly, the Minister's reply to his hon. Friends on this issue. Some hon. Members have a sneaking suspicion that the Minister may not be completely unsympathetic to some of the broader ideological and philosophical arguments that underpinned the speeches made by Government Members. I look forward, with more than usual enjoyment, to the way in which the Minister reads the brief on this occasion and the sense of commitment that comes out in that reading.
I shall put on record one or two comments about the Labour party's views on new clause 13. Basically, the clause attempts to rehearse and repeat many of the arguments that we have heard on previous occasions about education vouchers. The Right wing of the Tory party is bringing the free market philosophy to education. It has tried this argument on a number of occasions. On other occasions it probably had the intellectual and philosophical sympathy of the previous Secretary of State, but thankfully it did not have his practical support. On this occasion, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said — I wonder a little about the almost Keynesian language used — this is a micro-incrementalist amendment to the Education Act 1980. I very much like and appreciate such language. It may be a part of the dampening process that is going on within sections of the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong, for a number of reasons, to push the new clause. We believe that he is wrong


fundamentally because it is part of that overall philosophy. It is part of what I would see as the portakabin approach to education, whereby one builds up a series of popular schools, which become well-resourced as against other schools, and parents make a fairly obvious choice towards those schools. It has no planning and no ability to consider the allocation of resources between schools in a particular local education authority, nor does it have the ability to consider the allocation of resources between education authorities. We welcome the comments by the hon. Gentleman, who said that he opposed school closures and was worried about the policy of closing schools. If he thought through the basis of his own free market arguments, he would see that that would probably lead to more school closures and a greater emphasis on what I have called the portakabin approach.
The hon. Member for Darlington said that the new clause shifts the basis of appeal and power from the local education authority to the Government. That is clearly its purpose. He said that there are 10,000 appeals against school allocation but he did not—I listened carefully—say how many were rejected by local education authorities. His argument would have been stronger if he had cited those figures. It would have been stronger still if he had taken the opportunity to make it clear that his new clause would not provide parents with an absolute choice. There is a danger in the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric in that it gives parents the impression that new clause 13 would provide an absolute choice. It would do nothing of the sort. New clause 13 provides that the governors can opt out of parental choice by showing that that the decision they take is in line with efficient education and use of resources. That clause is badly drafted. It will help the legal profession and lead to a great deal of argument. It does not provide parents with an absolute choice in the way the hon. Member for Darlington suggested.
We would oppose the new clause if it were pushed to the vote but I suspect that the Under-Secretary of State, with the skill and arguments that he will use on this occasion, will be able to persuade his hon. Friends to see the correctness of his position and we will not have a vote. We oppose the measure for reasons which we have already stated—because we feel that it is not workable and does not make good education sense.

Mr. Dunn: I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to his new post as Opposition spokesman on education. I congratulate him on the courtesy and moderation with which he always delivers his speeches. He could almost be one of us.

Mr. David Winnick: That will not go down well in his reselection process.

Mr. Dunn: In that case, I shall withdraw that remark if it would lead to the hon. Gentleman being deselected, because he is quite a nice man really.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central and from my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I should like to take us back to the Education Act 1980. It was a major, pioneering Education Act, as my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who served with me as Back Benchers on the

Standing Committee, would confirm. That legislation did a great many things in the context of parental rights and appeal. It gave some protection to planned admission limits in a way that had never existed before. It must be right for Conservative Members to pay tribute to the framers of that legislation for what it did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington rightly pointed out that there were about 12,000 appeals a year of which more than a third were successful. It is not generally appreciated that, if a parent's appeal is upheld and the school of the parents' choice is agreed by the independent appeals committee, the school is obliged to take the child. If one, two, five or seven appeals are upheld, the school is obliged to take all those children. That did not obtain before the passage of the 1980 legislation. Under section 15, if a local education authority wishes to reduce the planned admission limit of a school, 20 per cent. or more of the previous admission level, it is required to publish notices and to bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State who adjudicates upon that wish.
There is debate, rightly, within our party and in the House about whether a figure of 20 per cent. is sufficient. I am not prepared to go down that route tonight except to point out to my hon. Friends that the protection of 20 per cent. under section 15 did not exist before. Consequently, there is no turning back, in any sense, or turning away from the reforms that we have initiated in the Education Act 1980 and those we are implementing in the passage of this Education Bill.
I can help my hon. Friends by referring to a significant provision already in the Bill. Clause 31 contains new provisions requiring the local education authority to consult the governing body before determining each year's admission arrangements. These will include the proposed intake target. The governing body will thus, for the first time, have a new opportunity to make its views known on these matters and the LEA will be required to give these views serious attention. As a function of the governing body, this matter will fall to be mentioned in the annual report to parents under clause 28 and, if parents wish, can be the subject of a resolution at the annual meeting under clause 29 which, again, the LEA would have to address seriously. More generally, of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to increase the influence parents have over the way in which their children's schools develop as part of local provision. I would regard this as a powerful extension of parental choice.
I understand the thrust of the points made by my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). However, I ask them not to press this new clause to a Division because I think that we have made significant gains in the Education Act 1980 and in the Bill which will shortly be enacted.

Mr. Fallon: I am grateful for the support I have had from Conservative Benches for the new clause. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said three things. I understood that the number of successful appeals was about 40 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister said it was about one third. I understand that it has varied slightly over the years. However, that still leaves far too many unsuccessful appeals. Both sides of the House, and those who framed the 1980 Act, should be interested in reducing the number of unsuccessful appeals. The hon. Gentleman also said that my amendment does not provide absolute choice. We cannot provide that. That is why I


want the governing body of the school to decide ultimately. Finally, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central quibbled with the wording. He suggested that it might be a lawyers' paradise. It is exactly the same as in the 1980 Act; it simply transfers the responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Minister told us earlier tonight, with his usual modesty, that he was the nicest person he knew. It is only because he is so nice that I am now going to say that I did not think much of his reply. I hope that the points that have been made and the support that my case has attracted will not be lost. I hope that he will reconsider his argument. It is because the rest of the Bill improves school management and gives parents greater involvement in schools that the frustrations built into the 1980 Act — because it is preference not choice — will increase. The more popular schools will become even more popular as a result of this Bill and more parents will apply to them.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the operation of the 1980 Act. It has now been running for six years. At the very least he should offer to review the workings of the appeals procedure. Perhaps when Mr. Mitchell has finished reviewing the closure procedures he could be prevailed upon to review the appeals procedures. If he does that, my new clause will not have been moved in vain.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

DIRECT FUNDING BY SECRETARY OF STATE

`(1) On an application duly made to him by the Governing body of any school, the Secretary of State may by order direct that as from the date specified in the order the school shall be funded directly by him.
(2) The basis of such funding shall be a grant for every pupil enrolled of the amount being spent for the time being on average for children in that age range in the maintained sector of education in England and Wales.
(3) Such per capita funding paid directly to the school by the Secretary of State shall be deducted from the expenditure permited to be incurred by the Local Education Authority.
(4) The Secretary of State shall have power to direct the Local Education Authority to lease the premises of the school in question to the Governing body on terms which he believes to be fair and reasonable.
(5) The Governing body shall have power to determine the educational policy of the school, to manage its finances and administration, and to point and dismiss (subject to current employment protection legislation) the Head Teacher and other staff of the school.
(6) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless he is satisfied that the Governing body is both willing and competent to exercise the responsibility of managing the school.
(7) Where the Governing body of a school propose to apply for an order under this section they shall, after consulting the Local Education Authority—

(a) publish their proposals in such manner as may be required by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) submit a copy of the published proposals to him;
(c) provide him with such information as he may reasonably require in order to enable him to give proper consideration to their proposals.

(8) The published proposals shall specify the date on which the proposals are intended to be implemented.
(9) Before the end of a period of two months beginning with the day on which the proposals arc first published, any of the following may submit objections to the proposals to the Secretary of State:

(a) any ten or more local government electors for the area;

(b) the Local Education Authority concerned.

(10) The Secretary of State shall have power to require modifications to the proposals put forward to him in an application under this section.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his initiative over the summer in launching the idea of city technology colleges. The principles behind the scheme, which are clearly set out in the excellent booklet speedily produced by his Department, are broadly in line with those encompassed in the new clause. The new CTCs are to be funded directly from his Department, on a per capita basis. They are to be independently run, with the head teachers having powers within those colleges to determine conditions, including pay and qualifications of staff. In short, they differ from the proposals in the new clause only in so far as there is a specific requirement that the curriculum should be oriented towards technology.
The Government have done a great deal to extend parental choice in education. Conservative Members have perhaps been too preoccupied with ideas such as educational vouchers, and not seen the possibilities that the type of change in funding that is envisaged with the CTCs could bring about within the state sector, within which is the greatest problem and need. I am unhappy with the situation that exists not only in our inner cities but in other parts of the country, where the only people who can exercise real choice in schooling are those who are wealthy enough to pay twice — once in taxation and once by opting into the private sector. Those who can opt for the private sector can look after themselves, but the most important group of parents consists of those who cannot afford anything other than the state sector, and we must concentrate on making the state sector responsive to their choices, and bringing choice within that sector. We must allow the state sector to blossom and grow to provide the real benefits and talents that it is capable of providing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should take courage and go further than the CTCs. He should recognise that every state school could be given the right, should the board of governors so decide, to opt for funding centrally, and that every state school could be given the responsibility for hiring its head teacher, and in his turn, the head teacher given the responsibility for the curriculum and the hiring and firing of staff. That would not only bring tremendous support and morale among the teaching profession but would do something far more important.

Mr. Fatchett: Nonsense.

Mr. Forsyth: That is not nonsense. I have yet to meet a head teacher who would not welcome the opportunity to have some say in the running of his school. At the moment, head teachers are limited to discretion on the spending of a few thousand pounds, and, as we have seen, where the Socialists have control of education authorities, head teachers are hounded and subjected to unacceptable political pressure about the staff that they hire and what they teach in the classrooms.
Not only would central funding be welcomed by the teaching profession — or at least by the best in the teaching profession—as it would enable them to give of


their best, but more importantly, as our schools have for far too long been captured by, and operated in the interests of, educationists, schools would start to respond to the needs and preferences of parents.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: If a parent decides to choose school A rather than school B, at present it makes no difference to the school or to the education authority. If there were per capita funding which my right hon. Friend has proposed in the CTCs, school A, in gaining a child, would gain extra resources. That school would be able to do more for its staff and provide more equipment and resources within the school. School B, in losing the opportunity of having that child, would have to consider where changes should be made. School B would have to consider the reasons why parents were not sending children there. A consideration of waiting lists and demands would provide an automatic incentive for schools to respond to parental preferences, and to be innovative and experimental and so bring a freshness to the system.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether in his system of per capita funding he would expect his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to fund schools on the basis of the best provision by local authorities at present — many of which are Labour-controlled — on the worst provision or on average provision, which is to be found in Conservative-controlled authorities?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has made the classic mistake which has dogged education for a generation. He has confused the output of schools and their success in producing pupils of a given standard and quality with the resources that are put into the schools. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he should consider the progress of the Inner London education authority. The authority has received far more resources than other authorities but it has achieved only half the national average of passes at A-level and it has twice the national average of pupils who leave without any passes or qualifications.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has missed the point. I am not talking about directing resources, although I am sure that resources directed on a per capita basis will be spent at the chalk face and not in the top-heavy tiers of administration in education authorities. My point is far more fundamental. The dispersal of resources should be made within the schools and schools should be directly accountable to parents, in the sense that if they do not perform they should receive fewer resources.
The argument would not, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish would like, be about the Government making enough money available. Instead, it would be about which schools use their resources most wisely and meet the needs and aspirations of parents.
My right hon. Friend has set in motion a radical experiment which should be welcomed by parents throughout the country. Although he may not be able to accept the new clause tonight, I hope that he will take courage from the fact that many people, not only in the Conservative party, believe that that could be the key to achieving the kind of change which we have looked and

longed for in education. That change could help us achieve the standards and performance achieved by other countries, by providing a choice for parents.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in support of new clause 27, so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I welcome the clause for three reasons. First, it provides the opportunity for schools to break free, if they so wish, from the inhibiting embrace of the local education authority. I welcome it because we have all seen the excesses perpetrated by certain Labour-controlled authorities and also because of the bureaucratic procedures which are strangling education in other parts of the country.
There is a specific dispute in my constituency which involves wrangling about the redistribution of hours given to ancillary staff. It will please you, Mr. Speaker, to hear that I do not propose to go into that today, but all the political in-fighting now going on in Norwich is due to the bureaucratic process which inevitably results from local authority control.
Secondly, I welcome the capitation principle. Thirdly, I welcome the fact that decision making would devolve to governors and head teachers under the new clause. Many of us have welcomed the experiment in Cambridgeshire in which financial control has been pushed down to head teachers. I gather that the experiment has been a success. If so, it further strengthens the argument that we have made today.
Finally, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling in his support for the city colleges of technology on exactly the principle proposed in new clause 27. The new colleges must be welcomed because they will attract more talent into engineering and more resources into education as all Members of the House wish. In addition, as my hon. Friend said, a welcome opportunity is provided for schools if they so wish to distance themselves from the local politics and bureaucracy which I believe are harming our education system.
I am pleased to support new clause 27.

Mr. Alan Howarth: This clause would build on the welcome elements in the Bill which strengthen the presence of parents on governing bodies and enhance the power of governing bodies. The new clause would allow schools to be selfgoverning and accountable to parents.
As we all know, there is acute anxiety about the condition of the education service in this country. That anxiety pre-dates the teachers' pay dispute but has been much intensified by it—and the prospect of a further, deeply regrettable flare-up in its dispute must further increase that anxiety. The anger of parents about disruption and their anxiety about the relative inadequacy of standards in this country has been increasingly endorsed by academic findings. I shall not rehearse the now familiar comparisons of average academic attainment in this country and in Germany or Japan, but the figures show a serious discrepancy and relative failure on the part of this country. The undercurrent of anxiety is now becoming a tide. Parents, employers and many teachers are deeply concerned.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) pinpointed what has gone wrong, and the new clause would strike at the root of the problem. Education has been in the hands of educationalists who


have not been under enough pressure through the system to he sensitive and responsive to the wishes of parents. It is a curious fact, for instance, that in the past 10 to 15 years when technical education should have been growing increasingly important in the range of provision available to children the technical schools were almost entirely destroyed in the name of the social theory of comprehensivisation. I welcome the emphasis given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of to a revival of technical education in this country and especially the city technology college initiative.
The temporary collapse of technical education was one aspect that was unsatisfactory to parents. Another has been the creeping politicization—indeed, it is more than creeping, it is very much on the march—in a number of local education authorities. It must be of concern to us all that the effect of these failures, relative inadequacies and abuses, has been to alienate many parents from the education system. It is significant that in a survey in 1963 only 27 per cent. of those surveyed supported the right of parents to opt out of the state provision of education. By 1979 that figure was 60 per cent.
If we are concerned, as we must he, for the cohesion of our society and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling emphasised, for the educational prospects of the 93 per cent. of the nation's schoolchildren who are in the maintained sector, we must take that trend seriously.
9.45 pm
If implemented, the new clause would enable schools where it was their wish and that of the local community to become responsive to parents in a new way. The new clause does not suggest that any system should be imposed. Where developments are to take place, they would be on the basis of what schools and local people desire. It would be a worthwhile complementary development to the CTC initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
It is a good thing that the pattern of funding and accountability of our schools is now being searchingly questioned. The teachers' unions and the local education authority employers are, understandably, asking for massive additional sums of taxpayers' money to be provided for the education service. Most of us would undoubtedly he happy to see significant extra sums being made available not only for teachers' salaries but for the classroom and going through to education itself. However, it is less sure that the taxpayer needs to be asked for large additional sums. It is, after all, a strange state of affairs and something of a puzzle that while the education budget nationally provides for a record amount of money to be spent per pupil, everywhere one comes across oversize classes, shortages of books and equipment, schools being closed, teachers who feel miserable because they are underpaid and a recruitment crisis in teachers of mathematics, science and craft, design and technology.
I suspect that the most important explanation to that conundrum lies in a written answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) when he was Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) in which he gave figures which showed that in the maintained sector of education there are 525,000 teachers and lecturers and 362,000 other full-time staff. For every

five teachers and lecturers there are roughly three other people employed full time. Enormous amounts of money are running into the bureaucratic sand.
The local government Audit Commission was looking in the wrong direction when it recommended recently that more schools must be closed in the interests of economy. It might be more appropriate for the local government Audit Commission to look a good deal more sceptically and searchingly at what local education authorities are doing.
The new clause would release schools, as they wish to be so released, from some of the toils of officialdom. It is a strange principle, upon which we have traditionally proceeded for many years in Britain, that politicians and officials know better than parents and teachers how education should be organised and what is the right kind of provision for children. We live in an age in which people are becoming increasingly conscious of their rights as citizens and consumers and I do not think they will be willing to tolerate this kind of bureaucratic thraldom for much longer.
Let me cite two instances of particular schools which show how popular this new clause would be if it were to be made law.
My hon. Friend may well be familiar with the John Loughborough school in Tottenham. There, West Indian parents became so intensely dissatisfied with the Inner London education authority's provision for them and their children that people who could ill afford to do so decided to set up their own school. Those parents are paying about £600 in fees. That is very hard for them to do but they care so much about the education of their children that they are willing to do so. They receive no support at all from the state as it is, but under the scheme put forward by my hon. Friend they would at least be entitled to the amount of money which the taxpayer and ratepayer reckon to spend on their behalf and that would surely be only right.
The second instance I would like to put to my hon. Friend the Minister comes from a different part of the country, from rural south Warwickshire in my constituency. Warwickshire county council proposed that the village school in Whichford should be closed. It gave no good reasons for the closure, and there are no good reasons on academic grounds for closing good 'village schools. Clare Burstall of the National Foundation for Educational Research has said that such hard evidence as there is on the relative academic performance and prospects of children in small schools suggests that they have an advantage. Certainly the people of Whichford were very clear that it would be a devastating blow to their local community to lose their school. They felt, and I heartily agree with them, that it is for them as local parents to make the judgment between the merits in terms of local community of keeping their school and the alleged educational advantages of having the children bussed some distance away to a larger school. They were quite clear that all the worthwhile arguments lay on the side of keeping their own school. So we asked Warwickshire county council whether it would allow those parents the money that Warwickshire would be spending on their children to set up a trust in the village and keep their school. Warwickshire county council said no. So we asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), when he was Secretary of State, whether he would be willing to intervene and consider whether


some such solution could be found. He gave us some encouragement but he said that he would need to be satisfied that they really had the commitment and the administrative capacity to see the scheme through. So we did some more research.
When we surveyed the households in the village, 104 supported the scheme and only three were opposed. We did some more research to discover what voluntary help could be found. Thirty volunteers put their names forward to help on such matters as school transport, playground supervision, sport, natural and environmental studies, music, dance, craft, cooking classes and computer classes as well as secretarial and maintenance help for the school. It became clear that with the willingness that there was in the local community to raise the extra money needed they could have kept the school open.
Under the system that we now have and under the law as it now stands they were not allowed to do so. That expression of opinion in Whichford was representative and I do not believe that my hon. Friends wish to ignore such an emphatic expression of opinion, which speaks for very many people in many different sorts of community in Britain.
Public opinion is bestirring itself on a very important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recognised that. I welcome the initiative he has announced on city technology colleges, and I hope that he will use something like the model of this clause to take the process further.

Mr. John Watts: I should like briefly to give a warm welcome to the principles of the clause moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). There are many good schools in Britain which are hampered and handicapped by local education authorities. It brings to my mind that television advertisement for one of the banks which poses the question, "Does your bank hold your business back or does it back your business?" There are many local education authorities that hold back our best schools rather than giving them the backing that they deserve.
If schools had the opportunity of breaking free from the shackles of educational bureaucracy, they could perform much better to the benefit of the children and in accordance with the desires of parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to a school in his constituency. I can also think of a school in my constituency where that solution might well be welcome. I refer to Langley grammar school. It has long been the desire of the education bureaucracy in Berkshire to put an end to grammar schools in Slough. Slough is one of the educational oases where grammar schools exist. In that dark period dating from 1981, when Berkshire county council was controlled by an alliance of the Labour party with the Liberals—a hung council or balanced, as those on the now empty alliance Benches would like to describe it—there were many attempts to destroy the grammar school system and to replace it with comprehensive schools. Fortunately, those attempts were resisted, and with the return of Conservative control in Berkshire they were buried.
That was not the end of the story. The education bureaucracy then sought to hamper the school by imposing a catchment area that would restrict its intake

and reduce the number of staff, thus causing a decline in the standard of education provided. That occurred even though the school is persistently oversubscribed because it performs in accordance with the parents' wishes. Although its future as a grammar school is still secure, the uncertainty that has hung over it for years means that it has been starved of the necessary physical resources. It has too much temporary accommodation and too few purpose-built structures for music, science and so on.
I have not been able to discuss the matter with the governors, but if they had the opportunity provided by the clause to go independent with a direct grant, they would do so. I am sure that the school would flourish and would continue to serve my constituents in Langley and the surrounding area, just as it has done so excellently for many years. Consequently, I warmly welcome at least the principles behind this measure.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I wish to raise two points briefly. The case for the self-management of finances by schools is almost self-evident. As a chairman of the governors of a comprehensive school for four years I know that nothing is more frustrating than having to go cap in hand to county hall to get a broken window or leaking tap fixed in the knowledge that the same service could have been purchased locally more quickly and cheaply. There are also different priorities. The school might think that one thing is top of the list while the divisional education office or county council education office might think another should be top. In those circumstances, it must be right for the school to decide.
Of course, Cambridgeshire has pointed the way. But there it is only 2 per cent. of the money. In my constituency a school with a budget of £450,000 might well see the governors having discretion over only £3,000. That is absurd. The important thing is to sensitise the system. We all know about the problem of falling school rolls. In an ideal world there would be a broad balance between the capacity of schools and the number of pupils, and all schools would be equally attractive. But in practice that is not so. In Hertfordshire there are 25 per cent. more places than pupils. But the spread is not even: some schools are full, while others are half full.
Eventually, the bureaucrats and politicians in county hall decide which schools should close. A different conclusion might be reached if there was parent power, because parents could choose the school that they wanted. Schools will only have an incentive to perform well, to use resources efficiently and to meet the demands of parents if their finances are in accordance with the number of pupils registered there.

Mr. Dunn: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Fatchett first.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall avoid the error of running into the Minister's pleasant comments, and will try to have them removed from Hansard when my reselection comes up. I was most concerned when he said that I could even be one of them. I think that that has a peculiar meaning in the Conservative party.
But the debate has been interesting. It has shown that a substantial section of the Conservative party is anti-local government and local democracy despite its attempts to conceal that fact. Those hon. Members want to centralise


education more and more. The debate has also shown that many Conservative Members are anti-teacher and against what they call educationists. In the past two years they have tried time and again to run down how teachers perform and have failed to give them credit for maintaining a high standard of education despite the Government's policies, which have deprived education of many resources.
I would like to comment briefly—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: No, I will not give way. I would like to comment on the theoretical arguments raised by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). It seems to me that the Right of the Conservative party has got itself into a state of some confusion and contradiction. It is not my task to try to sort out the intellectual thinking of the Conservative party but, from time to time, it may be appropriate to offer some guidance in the spirit of comradeship which has been pervasive in this debate.
In the previous debate, we heard that hon. Members wanted to decentralise, and basically that was their argument—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting the Education Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Malone.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Fatchett: Time and again in the previous debate reference was made to freedom of choice, parental choice and the notion of decentralisation. In this debate, exactly the opposite has been proposed. The hon. Member for Stirling wished to take the responsibility for managing and funding schools away from the local authorities and ultimately away from parents. He wishes to vest that power in the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I will explain why, and the hon. Gentleman may reply to that in his wind-up speech, when he may sort out his contradictions and confusions.
The hon. Member for Stirling wishes to vest that power in the Department because he wants to allow that Department to set the level of resources for each school. He does not wish to vest the power with the local authorities or with parents.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the level of funding, the hon. Gentleman ran away from that point and dismissed it as irrelevant. Those who have been involved with the education system will know that the level of funding is not irrelevant. The hon. Member for Stirling dismissed it as such because he realised that, if he put a figure on the level of funding, that would underpin my contention that he is a centraliser rather than a decentraliser.
We have had much talk about parental choice. This new clause shows that the previous discussion was a lot of hypocrisy. If the schools, as promulgated in the new clause, are established, the reality will be that the parents and those who run the school — the governors—will

invoke a process of selection to keep out children from the local catchment areas. These will be selection schools; they will not be parental choice schools.

Several Hon. Members: indicated assent.

Mr. Fatchett: Hon. Members may nod, but they should think it through. In reality, parents in a particular school will define their selection boundaries. They will be based not on the geographical catchment area but on other criteria—the criteria of selection. The hon. Member for Stirling, by his argument, has proved that he is a centraliser and that he has little regard for parental choice. He wishes to bring back selection to education and he wants to strengthen what is, in some respects, an already too elitist system. That is why we shall oppose the new clause.

Mr. Dunn: May I correct one thing? Earlier, I said to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that he was almost like one of them. I did not say that he was like one of us. If he is, that is his business.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on his excellent speech. It is clear from the debate—mainly from contributions by hon. Friends—that we have a radical and major contribution to make to the future of education in Britain. It is significant that the ideas come from the Conservative Benches. In the seven years that I have been a Member of the House, not one idea, improvement, benefit or dynamism has come from the Opposition.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling that the Government will have to think long and hard before they accept a scheme which has been outlined in the new clause. The issues are significant, far-reaching and undoubtedly controversial—that was probably the intention of my hon. Friend. Some of the ideas in the clause are fascinating and interesting. In my view, they are not the kind of changes which can be simply enacted by an amendment at this stage. With as much conviction as I can muster in a brief response, I invite my hon. Friend not to press his proposal.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall not spend much time on what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said. It is interesting that it should be central as his party is the party of centralists. I thought it significant that the hon. Gentleman spent the whole of his speech labelling me with concepts which are nothing to do with the spirit of the new clause rather than stating why he opposes the principle behind it.
The hon. Member's principal argument, in so far as it related to new clause 27, was about the method of funding. That shows that the extent of his research and consideration had not gone beyond the first line as he will find that subsection (2) of the new clause sets out the basis of funding.
I had not expected my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the new clause tonight. I am encouraged by what he said. He said that he needs to think long and hard about this matter and that there are many aspects of it which he finds attrative. I invite him to think long and hard. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

DUTY OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE DEBT CHARGES

'It shall he the duty of every local education authority to publish annually a statement of all outstanding debt charges applicable to each school in their area.'.—[Mr. Madel.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Madel: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 119, in clause 27, page 30, line 26, leave out from second 'the' to 'a' in line 31 and insert
'governing body to prepare and publicise once in every year'.
No. 120, in page 30, line 38, at end insert
'and
(iii) comparable figures for all other schools for which the local education authority are responsible.'.
No. 227, in page 30, line 38, at end insert
'and
(iii) debt charges relating to the school for which the authority is responsible.'.
No. 121, in page 30, line 42, leave out from 'discretion' to end of line 2 on page 31 and insert
'such sum to any amount up to the total running cost of the school in the previous year adjusted by the percentage change in the average allocation of resources to schools of that class within the local education authority for the budgeted year, the proportion of such sum to be allocated to be at the sole discretion of the governing body'.
No. 122, in page 31, line 3, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 123, in page 31, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
No. 125, in page 31, line 16, after 'authorities', insert `and teachers' associations'.

Mr. Madel: I was grateful when, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that clause 27 virtually incorporated my Education (School Budgets) Bill, which I presented in the 1984–85 session.
New clause 32 and amendment No. 227 would ensure that the hidden large costs of running a school—debt charges — are published annually so that it is made crystal clear to parents and ratepayers what the costs are. Clause 27(1)(a)(i) provides:
expenditure incurred or proposed to he incurred by the authority in meeting the day to day cost of running the school (itemised as the authority think appropriate)".
I happen to think it very appropriate that we write into the clause what I have proposed in new clause 32 and amendment No. 227.
The Government are anxious about the growing cost of surplus school places. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has referred to Hertfordshire's difficulty. Like many other shire counties, Bedfordshire has the same problems. It should not be forgotten that surplus places alone are not causing increased spending—we must include debt charges that fluctuate in size with interest rates.
It might appear that some local authorities are spending a great deal on education, but they inherited recently completed or partly completed school building programmes in the mid-1970s after reorganisation, which carried big debt charges. When the Conservative Government reformed local government in 1974 a number of local authorities were in the middle of huge and expensive comprehensive reorganisations which carried with them the debt charges to which I have referred.
Nothing causes greater uproar in some areas than proposals to close schools, either because they have become too small or because there has to be a reorganisation. Parents and ratepayers have the right to know the full costs involved in running a school—that is provided for in clause 27 — and the current debt charges. A number of county councils and their education committees are hung; the alliance often, alas, holds the balance of power. In those circumstances parents and ratepayers, have the right to know the different costs of shutting school A rather than school B. They have to weigh up what they think is best and information on debt charges would be helpful and enlightening for them.
There is an annual problem with the rate support grant. The Government are in the thick of deciding what should he done for 1987–88, but I believe that in the current RSG insufficient attention was paid to the debt charges that some authorities, including Bedfordshire county council, have to carry. Debt charges for a school are unavoidable as long as it is used by a local authority.
New clause 32 and amendment No. 227 would be helpful to the Government, local authorities and, above all, to parents and ratepayers. The object of my Bill, which is virtually incorporated in clause 27, was to give parents and ratepayers an unfettered right to information about what it costs to run a school. We often hear talk about teachers' salaries swallowing the lion's share of expenditure and about schools that have not had enough spent on books or repairs. When clause 27 is the law of the land we shall all know what has been spent, what is being spent and what it is proposed to spend. My new clause and amendment No. 227 will ensure that maximum information is provided to parents and ratepayers about the cost of running a school.

Mr. Dunn: I acknowledge the influential contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) to our thinking on financial information for and about schools. Much of the spirit of his private Member's Bill is reflected in clause 27 and the House owes him a vote of thanks.
It is central to clause 27 that as much information as possible on the day-to-day running costs of schools should be made available to governing bodies, without unnecessarily overburdening the LEAs. That is why required information is restricted to current expenditure and there is a discretion to include capital expenditure. My hon. Friend seeks to extend prescription to information on debt charges and he wrote to the Department earlier this year to express his great interest in such an extension.
Debt charges are an important element of an authority's central continuing costs, but the Government believe that such central costs, seldom attributed to a particular school, would not furnish governing bodies with information that was pertinent to their making sound decisions on the best use of the resources allocated to them. However, if an LEA believes otherwise it will be free to include such information on a school-by-school basis. In the light of that, I ask my hon. Friend to accept that the problem is better treated with discretion than with prescription and I hope that he will seek to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have no desire to detain the House, but I wish to mention amendment No. 120, the


purpose of which is obvious. It is to ensure that if schools are to be provided with financial information they should also be provided with comparative information from which they can assess the implications. I hope that my hon. Friend can accept that principle because it will be difficult for schools to interpret information if they have nothing with which to compare it.

Mr. Norris: I endorse the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) about amendment No. 120. Clause 27 is to be a great advance, in that it provides school governors with information with which to manage their finances. The Bill's aim is to improve accountability and to make it more real than apparent. It is a matter of management practice that in requiring a local education authority to provide details of expenditure incurred or proposed and details of capital expenditure, schools should be provided with comparable information with which to evaluate the performance of their school. I invite the Minister to consider that in any industrial complex in which performance indicators are employed the key is comparison. I commend amendment No. 120.

Mr. Dunn: I appreciate that my hon. Friends seek to extend the minimum list of items for which some spending responsibility is to be devolved and the information about that. However, there are real and practical reasons against what they seek to do. For example, in many authorities minimum charges will not be allocated to schools but will relate to blocks of capital grant for primary school or general modernisation programmes. Some may be longstanding and relate to up to 60 years of programming for land, and to not much less time for buildings. There are particular problems in relating them to one school. The different methods of financing capital programmes make debt charge information variable and an imperfect measure of exactly what a local authority is spending on a school.
If a local authority wants to provide information on capital cost it will be free to provide it, bearing in mind that such a commitment might involve that authority in a great deal of work. We are talking about a discretion. We are not forbidding the provision of information. It is up to the local authority to provide the information that it cares to provide about capital cost and works on schools. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend the Minister invited local authorities, if pushed, to respond positively and to supply information about debt charges. I accept that it will take some time before they get into their stride and provide that information under clause 27. It will take time for that to become law without hiccups. I hope that local authorities will read our debate and respond constructively to what the Minister said about the need to supply financial information, if required. I believe that that information will be required by ratepayers.
In view of the spirit in which my hon. Friend responded to the new clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

APPOINTMENT OF PARENT GOVERNORS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 6, line 34, leave out
'may be appointed by the authority'
and insert
`shall be appointed by the other members of the governing body.'.
No. 34, in page 6, line 39, leave out 'local education authority' and insert
`other members of the governing body'.
No. 35, in page 7, line 7, leave out `authority' and insert
`other members of the governing body'.
No. 36, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'the local education authority' and insert 'governors'.
No. 37, in page 7, line 22, after 'the', insert 'local education'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 6

CONNECTION WITH LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Amendment made: No. 229, in page 7, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) where it appears to them that no governor of the school is a member of the local business community, or that it is desirable to increase the number of governors who are, to co-opt a person who appears to give them to be a member of that community;'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 7

APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNORS IN PLACE OF CO-OPTED GOVERNORS

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 8, line 9, after 'shall', insert:
`,if the school has less than 100 registered pupils,'.
No. 47, in page 8, line 10, after 'for', insert 'at least'.
No. 49, in page 8, line 17, at end insert:
';and shall, if it has more than 99 registered pupils, provide for two governors to be so appointed.
(3A) Where, by virtue of subsection (3) above, an instrument of government is required to provide for the appointment of two governors, it may make different provision in relation to the appointment of one governor to that made in relation to the appointment of the other.'.
No. 50, in page 8, line 24, leave out 'a' and insert 'any'.
No. 51, in page 8, line 33, after 'one', insert:
`or (as the case may be) two'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 8

GOVERNORS' PROCEEDINGS AND TENURE OF OFFICE

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 9, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(4A) Any foundation governor of a voluntary school, or governor of a county, voluntary or maintained special school appointed otherwise than by being co-opted, may be removed from office by the person or persons who appointed him.
For the purposes of this subsection, a governor appointed in accordance with any provision made by virtue of section 5 of this Act shall be treated as having been co-opted.'.
No. 55, in page 9, line 34, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 36.
No. 56, in page 9, line 37, after 'required', insert
'for the purposes of making appointments in accordance with any provision made by virtue of section 5 of this Act or'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 10

REQUIREMENTS AS TO CONSENT TO GROUPING

Amendment made: No. 230, in page 12, line 42, leave out '5 and '.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 15

MISCELLANEOUS

Amendment made: No. 231, in page 19, line 17, after 'provision', insert:
'(otherwise than by virtue of section 6 of this Act)'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 17

DUTY OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY TO STATE POLICY

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 20, line 24, leave out second 'and'.
No. 63, in page 20, line 25, leave out 'publish' and insert 'make'.
No. 64, in page 20, line 26, at end insert'; and
(c) to furnish the governing body and head teacher of every such school with a copy of the statement and publish it in such other manner as the authority consider appropriate.'.
No. 65, in page 20, line 34, at end insert—
'(4) Every head teacher to whom any copy of a statement is furnished under this section shall make it available, at all reasonable times, to persons wishing to inspect it.'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 18

COUNTY, CONTROLLED AND MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move amendment No. 232, in page 21, line 6, after 'policy', insert
`with regard to matters other than sex education'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 233 to 240.
Amendment No. 114, in page 30, line 16, leave out clause 26.
No. 226, in clause 26, page 30, line 18, after 'shall', insert
'in consultation with parents of registered pupils at the school'.
No. 221, in clause 26, page 30, line 18, leave out 'are reasonably practicable'.
No. 228, in clause 26, page 30, line 22, after `considerations', insert
'In particular the value of fidelity within marriage and chastity before it'.
No. 115, in clause 26, page 30, line 22, leave out 'and'.
No. 222, in clause 26, page 30, line 22, after 'or, insert 'stable'.
No. 116, in clause 26, page 30, line 22, at end insert
`the promotion of happy and stable relationships between partners, the pattern of family structures in the area of the authority, the likely impact of such education on children in non-traditional family structures or in care, the values of ethnic and religious minorities in the area, the availability and proper use of contraception, and the availability of, and legal provisions relating to, abortion'.
No. 118, in clause 26, page 30, line 22, at end insert—
'(2) It shall be the right of any parent to withdraw his child from any sex education to which that parent objects.'.
No. 242, in clause 26, page 30, line 22, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State may by order direct any Local Education Authority to remove any books on sex education which in his opinion are unsuitable or morally corrupting.
(3) A local educational authority which has received such a direction shall require all governing bodies of schools within that Authority's area to comply with the direction.
(4) Any teacher who uses such books on sex education contrary to an order by the Secretary of State shall be liable to instant dismissal.
(5) Any parent whose children can be shown to have suffered by the use of books on sex education, which have been subject to an order of the Secretary of State, may bring an action for damages against the Local Education Authority concerned.'.
No. 244, in clause 57, page 61, line 2, at end insert '26'.
Mr. Secretary Baker's motion, That Clause 26 be transferred to end of line 19 on page 47.

Mrs. Rumbold: I wish briefly to take the time of the House to set out the Government's position.
The issues associated with sex education in schools have been the subject of much debate and discussion in this House, in another place, and in the country generally. Strong feelings have been expressed—understandably so—as this is a uniquely sensitive aspect of schools' work, which bears directly on the physical, emotional and moral wellbeing of pupils.
The Government remain firmly committed to sex education as an essential component part of preparing pupils for the realities and responsibilities of adult life. For that area of a school's curriculum, it is important that the

provision offered should be appropriate and should reflect the best of existing practice. That is the intention of clause 26.
The clause could be, and indeed has been described as "a statement of the obvious". Perhaps that is so, but in this area the obvious is worth stating and establishing. I am sure that all in this House would agree that such a difficult and sensitive area of the curriculum cannot be dealt with adequately, other than within a moral context. Similarly, it must be right and proper for schools to encourage youngsters to look at questions of personal relationships and sexuality in a positive manner, which recognises the realities and responsibilities of sexual maturity, marriage and parenthood-in other words, we are talking of the value of family life. The vast majority of schools and teachers for the past 15 years or more have been approaching sex education in an appropriate and responsible manner, and for them clause 26 can he seen simply as giving statutory endorsement and underpinning to their work. Regrettably, however, not all local education authorities and schools live up to this ideal, and there has been increasing concern about instances of the use of educationally unsound teaching materials and methods and the propagation of extreme and unrepresentative views of sexual ethics and quite bizarre behaviour by certain authorities and teachers. I do not propose to detail these instances here and now, but I believe that all hon. Members will be familiar with the kind of abuses which I have in mind.
Understandably, parents throughout the country and from every walk of life have been disturbed by the reports of such undesirable so-called sex education and are anxious to see their children protected from such influences. The provisions of clause 26 will go much of the way towards ensuring that irresponsible and inappropriate teaching does not find its way into the classroom. There has, however, been pressure for this provision to be reinforced, by giving parents a statutory right to withdraw their child from any sex education provision to which they object, and we have two amendments before us, Nos. 117 and 118, which would have this effect.
Attractive as such a course may seem at first sight, it is not the answer. A statutory right of withdrawal from sex education would be wrong in principle, unworkable in practice and, above all, would evade rather than tackle the problem of unsuitable teaching being imposed on pupils against their parents' wishes.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend says that the right of withdrawal would be impracticable, but this is happening throughout the country already. Parents are withdrawing their children from sex education. It is done usually in consultation with the school and no prosecution follows. Is my hon. Friend saying that the Government's position is that if in future parents seek to withdraw their children from sex education that will amount to a failure to attend school regularly under section 36 of the Education Act 1944? If that is the guidance that is to be given by the Government to local education authorities, it is going a great deal further than anything that we have seen to date.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend may be aware that under present regulations within schools if a parent approaches a head teacher and, with the agreement of the head teacher, there is an arrangement whereby the child may not attend certain classes, that is the situation that


obtains. The situation that will obtain in future is one that I shall explain as I proceed with my argument, which I think will cover more than adequately the issue that has been raised by my hon. Friend.
The Government and Parliament have a responsibility to take effective steps to ensure that the provision offered in this important area of education is educationally and morally sound and acceptable to parents. We cannot simply encourage parents who may have concerns about what is on offer to opt out.
Parents have no right elsewhere in the secular curriculum to select from what schools have on offer. The provisions for withdrawal from religious education do not offer a precedent here. The 1944 settlement made a clear distinction between religious education and the secular curriculum, as a reflection of the particular place of the religious interests in the dual system. Religious freedom is a fundamental right in this country, hard won over many generations and rightly cherished. I cannot accept that any aspect of the secular curriculum, no matter how sensitive, can be viewed in the same light.
On the question of practicability, we live in a world where issues of personal relationships and sexuality are not conveniently compartmentalised. We cannot prevent children from picking up information about sexual matters from television or the newspapers or from day-to-day conversations with their friends. As a result, inside the school, there are many situations in which questions concerning sexual matters may arise, either spontaneously or as part of a planned programme, for example in discussion of literature, or in lessons in biology or home economics. Sex education itself is often not a separately timetabled subject, but encompasses a variety of different parts of the curriculum. Pupils' education would be seriously harmed if parents had an absolute right to require that their child should be withdrawn on each and every occasion on which sexual matters might be mentioned.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall continue my argument for a while, because it is important to maintain the flow. From my experience of teenage children, it is unlikely that they themselves would welcome such a measure.

Mr. McLoughlin: I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend has just made. There is much concern among parents following an advertisement placed by Derbyshire county council in the Derby Evening Telegraph at this time of cutbacks in education, about which we regularly hear, regarding the creation of 285 new teaching posts. I ask whether my hon. Friend accepts that part of the parents' concern would be the bottom paragraph in the advertisement, which states:
The council's policy is that all people receive equal treatment regardless of their sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The fact that county education authorities are advertising teaching posts in that vein is causing great concern among parents.

Mrs. Rumbold: I consider that the local education authority is using its hard-earned and hard-fought for financial resources in an extremely reprehensible way. It

is not something that I would welcome. I do not think that many hon. Members would welcome the use of education money for such a purpose. I hope to go on to explain how the Government's amendment will assist in trying to refute such a use of education funds.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Do the Minister and the Government propose that such circumscriptions be introduced into the public school sector also? I am sure that the Government have at heart the vast number of pupils who go to public schools about which people can exercise a choice. Indeed, they advertise various aspects of their curriculum and the way in which they educate children. Does the Minister agree that the criteria should apply to public schools, or does she believe that public school pupils are not required to have any sex education at all?

Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Member understood what were the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he would know that he does not have responsibility for public schools. It may be something that he knows about rather than me. I am not aware that we are talking about that. We are talking about the maintained sector.
The amendments which we propose to clause 18 will, I believe, strike effectively at the root of public concern about sex education — the possibility of inappropriate methods and materials finding their way into the classroom, and the newspapers, against parents' wishes. Under the proposed new arrangements, control over sex education in county, controlled and maintained special schools would be removed from teachers and local education authorities, and placed in the hands of the new-style governing bodies provided for under the Bill, with their increased parental representation, and answerable to an annual meeting of the full parent body. The governing body would be responsible for deciding, and stating publicly, whether a school is to offer sex education and, if so, what its contents should be and how it should be organised. This is broadly the position already in voluntary aided schools. In doing so, the governors will be required to have regard to the local education authority's policy and to consult the head teacher, but not specifically to consult the LEA.
Under the proposed new arrangements, the governors would have the power to decide that a particular textbook or teaching aid should not be used in the classroom, and to determine the way in which particularly controversial issues, such as homosexuality, should be approached by teachers, if at all. They would also have the discretion—presently exercised by the head—to decide whether, in certain particular circumstances, where there are irreconcilable differences between the views of an individual parent and the school's approach to sex education, a particular pupil might be withdrawn from certain lessons. I hope that that answers the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
Although the governors would, in principle, be able to decide that sex education is not to be provided at all in a particular school, I expect that, in practice, they would be guided by the Government's firm belief that sex education is an essential curricular element and that to deprive pupils of any teaching in this field—where not all parents are able or, indeed, willing to offer the necessary information


and guidance themselves — would be to leave those pupils prey to misinformation, misunderstanding and playground gossip and ill-prepared for the responsibilities of adult life. The position of examination courses which require the study of reproduction and sexual behaviour, notably biology, is specifically safeguarded in the amendments.
The Government's proposals are a recognition of the unique sensitivities surrounding sex education and the extent of public and parental concern. We have no intention of introducing similar arrangements for the handling of other contentious aspects of schools' work. Those schools and teachers who are providing appropriate and responsible sex education should welcome their work being endorsed by the governing body. Only those who are pursuing ill-thought-out or inappropriate policies should find their work questioned, and rightly so. I have already mentioned that the governors will be required to consult the head teacher in determining their policy, and I sincerely hope that they will, in the main, be guided by his or her professional expertise and advice. Teacher representatives on the governing body will also be able to influence and inform the policy-making process.
I stress that, under the proposed new arrangements, all the parties concerned will continue to be bound by clause 26, which requires that any sex education provided is set within a clear moral framework and is supportive of family life.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: What exactly does my hon. Friend mean by a "moral framework"? As there is no absolute morality, is she talking about Christian morality?

Mrs. Rumbold: The only description of the moral framework which one can talk about is the well-understood view of family life—a loving and sharing relationship within the confines of family life. [Interruption.] I did not say that. It is right and essential for the Government and the House to offer the education service a clear statement of the broad principles which should inform "good" sex education. I need hardly say that I am concerned that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and his colleagues propose that clause 26 should be deleted from the Bill. The most recent question underlines that concern. It would not, however, be appropriate for such a statement to move beyond the general and to seek to prescribe, in primary legislation, the detailed content of sex education lessons. To do so, would be to set an undesirable precedent and would unreasonably constrain the power which we are now seeking to give to governors to decide on the content and organisation of sex education in their own schools.
We have a number of amendments before us which seek, in various ways, to alter or expand the wording of clause 26. I must admit to rather more sympathy with the intentions of those tabled by Conservative Members than the proposals of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and his colleagues, who appear to have a view of the priorities for sex education provision which I imagine would be of concern not only to many parents but to many teenagers.
However, I am firmly of the view that clause 26, unamended, sets out in unequivocal terms what I might term the "tone and tenor" of appropriate sex education, and serves clear notice on all concerned of the standard

which the House expects all schools to reach. The Government will be offering further guidance on how these broad principles should inform detailed practice in sex education when we issue a final version of our circular on sex education at school, a draft of which was issued for comment earlier in the summer. Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools will also be issuing substantive professional guidance on the teaching of sex education, following references in its recently published discussion document on "Health Education from 5 to 16 Years". These are the appropriate vehicles for the discussion of the detailed content of sex education provision — not primary legislation.
On a motion to move clause 26 to a different place in the Bill, I should explain that, as we come to consider the final shape of this legislation, it seems to us that clause 26, on sex education, would be better placed in part IV with other similar provisions.
I believe that the new arrangements we have proposed for the control of sex education, set within the broad framework established by clause 26, offer the most effective way of achieving the aim, which I would hope all in this House share, of ensuring that all schools offer appropriate and responsible sex education in which all parents can have full confidence and which offers all pupils the best possible preparation for facing the challenges, choices and responsibilities which sexual maturity and adult life bring.

Mr. Radice: It is widely recognised that sex education is an important part of the curriculum and it is common ground on both sides of the House that it is essential that children are made aware not only of the physical facts but of the wider social and moral issues. Such knowledge is an aid to development and a protection for young people as they grow up in a world in which social and moral attitudes are changing and in which there are varying patterns of relationships and behaviour.
The importance of sex education is acknowledged in the HMI document "Health Education from 5 to 16 years" in the recently published Department of Education and Science circular to local education authorities and governors—a good circular—and in the Government White Paper "Better Schools".
We know that the majority of pupils are strongly in favour of sex education. We know that there is also considerable evidence of strong parental backing for sex education. The Policy Studies Institute's survey of 200 families with teenage children found that 96 per cent. of parents thought that schools should provide sex education. Another study of 16,000 parents carried out by the health unit of Exeter university found that three quarters of those questioned wanted their children taught about human reproduction, conception, pregnancy and birth and 27 per cent. even went so far as to say that they preferred the school to take responsibility for all aspects of sex education and personal relationships. Therefore, it is clear that there is strong support by parents for sex education in schools. According to the PSI survey, most parents stressed the need for a partnership between school and home. Where there were criticisms, parents tended to concentrate on the inadequacy of the coverage of sex education rather than on any over-provision.
Another significant finding of the survey was that sex education is not confined to a special subject. It is taught in a number of subjects including personal and social


education, health education, religious education, biology and English, as well as arising more informally in personal counselling or following the pupils' questions.
I am sure that the HMI is right when it says that sex education ought to deal with such issues as contraception, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases and homo-sexuality. They are part of today's world and our children have to be made aware of them. However, because those issues in particular, and sex education in general, are sensitive and potentially controversial they have to be handled in a careful, balanced and responsible way, as they are in the majority of cases. If sex education is to be effective particular care has to be taken to retain the support and confidence of parents both for what is taught and for the material used in schools. I welcome the stress which a recent ILEA document, "The Teaching of Controversial Issues in Schools" gives to the need to consult parents.
The promotion of materials or teaching methods which do not have the support of parents is certain to be counterproductive and is likely to undermine attempts to produce balanced attitudes towards sex and sexual relationships. A backlash could endanger sex education.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: Yes, but only once, as many hon. Members want to speak on this subject.

Mr. Hickmet: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that much of the concern that has given rise to the amendment relates to the manner in which the ILEA has promoted sex education in inner London schools and the manner in which sex education has been promoted in places such as Brent and Haringey? Does he believe that the book recently put out by the ILEA is a desirable publication? Does he consider that the proceedings last night in Haringey, and recently in Brent, were desirable? If not, what should be done about such matters?

Mr. Radice: That question should really be addressed to the Government. The hon. Gentleman questions me about material that he says has been put out by the ILEA. I think he is referring to a certain book. That was not put out by the ILEA to schools, and it is to he used only with the support of parents. Personally, I do not believe that that book should be for general use, and nor does the ILEA.
Now the question of legislation. On Second Reading and in Committee I said clearly that I thought it important that any local authority should retain the confidence and support of parents. I repeat that now. At those stages of the Bill my hon. Friends and I took the view that it was wrong for sex education to be in the Bill. I note that when the measure began its life in the other place, it did not include the clause on sex education. In other words, the Government then agreed with us. Their conversion was imposed on them in the other place. Let us be honest about that.
Lady Hooper, speaking in the other place on behalf of the Government, was absolutely right when she said:
We must look to individual teachers to exercise good judgment in planning their teaching and selecting appropriate teaching materials. We should not take away that admittedly heavy responsibility from teachers. Only they can properly

exercise it, subject to the regulations and to the pressure parents can exert at their annual meetings, or other meetings".—[Offieial Report, House of Lords, 15 April 1986; Vol. 473, c. 650.]
Our position remains that we do not believe sex education should be in the Bill and that it is best left, as Lady Hooper said, to a partnership involving teachers, parents, governing bodies and local education authorities.
I come to the parental opt-out alternative which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), if he is allowed to pursue it, having arrived here late. On Report we tabled an amendment along similar lines. However, unlike the hon. Gentleman, we consulted teachers' organisations, LEAs and other bodies, parents and governors. We became convinced that it would be undesirable and impractical to opt out. We found particularly persuasive the letter of 7 August which the present Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction sent to hon. Members.
The letter from the Minister was very persuasive. It stated:
Any such right would be wholly innappropriate in the secular curriculum and would open the door to the fragmentation of school education. Nor could it be worked in practice. Sex education is often given, not as a separate time-tabled subject, but as an element of several different parts of the curriculum …Pupils' education would be seriously disrupted, and the schools' task made unmanageable, if pupils had to be withdrawn every time sexual matters were discussed.
The Minister was correct, and we should heed his advice.
I would now like to consider the Government's new amendment, which the Secretary of State produced at his party conference as a compromise solution. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and the new Minister have not stuck to the position for which the Minister argued so persuasively in his letter in August. I cannot help suspecting that it was the need to produce a bone for the Conservative party delegates and for the Secretary of State's Back Benchers rather than the facts that swayed the Secretary of State and the Minister to their present course. Be that as it may, the solution which the Minister has put forward this evening is highly unsatisfactory. First, contrary to the wise words of Baroness Hooper, and indeed to what the Secretary of State had to say at the Conservative party conference about the importance of building up the role of head teachers, the amendment will remove all responsibility from teachers. It will also remove responsibility from the local education authorities—

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Radice: Yet the governing body already has adequate powers over the curriculum by the articles of government. As the Minister stated in his letter in August, it will have additional powers over the curriculum when the Bill is passed. It appears as if the amendment is simply window dressing. There is no real argument for giving the governing body total control over sex education.
There is an even greater problem. The Government have said that they are in favour of sex education, yet under the amendment it will be possible, as we have heard from the Minister, for a governing body to decide that there should be no sex education in a school. That is completely illogical. The Government have said that they believe in sex education and that it is an essential part of the curriculum yet they are allowing governing bodies to decide that schools should not have sex education. The amendment goes way beyond the opt-out amendment


tabled by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. It is against the best interests of pupils and parents and against the Government's policy.
However, there may be a cop-out as the head is required by the amendment to consider the governors' statement, and he has then to ensure that the curriculum is compatible with it except — and hon. Members should note this point — where it conflicts with any part of an examination course in the curriculum. On the face of the amendment, the head is not required to change the content of examination subjects, for example, biology, home economics or sociology, which may include sex education issues. If that is the correct interpretation, many schools could simply re-organise the curriculum to include sex education under other subjects. Is that what the Government intend should happen? I hope that the Minister will answer that point.
The Minister's letter to hon. Members states that the governors would also have the discretion to allow pupils to be withdrawn from sex education lessons at parental request. It is difficult to discover from the wording of the amendment if that is really the case. That is difficult to understand. I do not see how this follows from the wording of the amendment. I have taken legal advice on the amendment, and the Government have clearly used their legal advisers, but it will be a matter for the courts to decide. That is not a sensible way to legislate. Will the Minister explain to the House how the amendment gives governing bodies the right to allow pupils to opt out? The Government amendment is ill-conceived, badly drafted and probably unworkable, and we shall vote against it.
In conclusion, I agree that sex education is a very important subject, but I must say that in recent weeks I have found distasteful the obsessive interest that a few Conservative Members have displayed in the issue. I wish that they were as interested in the inadequate supply of books and equipment, the bad state of repair of too many schools, the shortages of teachers and all the other problems in education. I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Leicester, East and others to future debates on education.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you allow a separate vote on amendment No. 118? Now that we have heard the speeches of the two Front-Bench spokesmen, is it not desirable that, if requested, there should be a separate Division on amendment No. 118?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. Amendment No. 118 has been selected for a separate Division, and when we reach that point I shall ask an hon. Member to move it formally. Perhaps I could also inform the House that there has been a request for a separate Division on amendment No. 114. That has also been granted, and again I shall ask an hon. Member to move the amendment formally when we reach it. I call Mr. Peter Bruinvels.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Bruinvels.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that, in recent years, standards in the House have slipped occasionally. Will you confirm that it is grossly discourteous to the House for a Member to come into the Chamber eight minutes after a

debate has started and then expect to be called to speak in that debate, not having heard eight minutes of the Minister's opening remarks?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have called Mr. Bruinvels.

Mr. Bruinvels: May I make the point clearly that I was 30 seconds late, for which I apologise. I was certainly no later than that.
I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the concessions that they have made in response to our calls for children to have the right to opt out of sex education if their parents are especially concerned about sex education in schools. As I speak to amendment No. 118, in my name and in the names of almost 60 of my colleagues, and to amendment No. 242, I shall seek to put across the point that although we are grateful and pleased that the concession has been made, we do not believe that it has gone far enough to allow us completely to accept my hon. Friend's statement.
To me, sex education is fast becoming a mass of conflicting ideas and ideologies. If we knew what sex education was about, we could understand its meanings and perhaps matters would not be as worrying as they are, be it in Haringey or in Brent. Gone are the days of plain biology when uncompromising lessons on human reproduction were acceptable. Instead, some teachers—I stress the word "some" — promote their sexual preferences, prejudices and proclivities and give talks on their own sexual morality in such a way as to encourage very young children to accept as abnormal what we think is normal and vice versa. Certainly the controversial side issues, such as homosexuality, the books available, such as "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", the promotion of sexual promiscuity and other deviant sex relationships have caused great concern to many parents and, indeed, to teachers. Irresponsible and unpoliced sex education lessons which occur at present have possibly encouraged children to experiment and put this new knowledge into practice. That will certainly corrupt them.
Sex education must always be balanced, responsible and given in such a way as to encourage all children—they are, after all, very impressionable—to want to live decent, happy and normal family lives and not to be corrupted by some of the hooks that the Opposition seem not to condemn. I believe that it is for parents to decide if, when and by whom sex education should be given. After all, it is a private matter. The wrong books and the wrong teachers will corrupt and deprave.
11 pm
We must ask ourselves what is the purpose of sex education in schools. I do not totally oppose it, but who should give that form of education? Are the teachers qualified? Are they specialists? Does sex education come within the overall syllabus of any particular department? Should it not be included purely and exclusively in biology? What is the content of sex education? Should it not be all-inclusive, with moral teaching, a social setting, biological facts and medical information? At what age should pupils come forward to be taught?
Should visual and audio aids be used? Some of the books and videos used in this country can corrupt children at a very early age. Are the titles helpful? Do they tell the whole story? Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State publish a list of the books that he and


his officials have approved as being helpful? The governing bodies will now have the ultimate say as to whether sex education is given, but they will certainly need help and advice and no one is better able to give it than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not just because he is head of the Department of Education and Science but because he is a father and understands the need to protect children. It is not just a matter of the professional role of the teacher or the role of the parent. Young children are being born every day and they are easily corrupted if given the wrong kind of tuition.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to notification for parents, the need for the annual meeting and the obvious opportunities for governing bodies to monitor sex education. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that the Government amendment would give parents an even greater say than we are seeking because sex education could be taken out of the curriculum altogether. I believe that some sex education should be given, but in a responsible way promoting the family and securing what I regard as the mystery of marriage. Biological facts about the reproductive system and teaching about morality are OK, but bringing in sordid sexual experiences and discussing the ifs and buts of homosexuality and promiscuity is obviously dangerous. I should like teachers to be totally qualified in the sex education that they are giving, but many have no experience whatever and do not even wish to teach in the first place.
I should have thought that parents rather than teachers knew best their children's needs and requirements and the final say is certainly best left to individuals. Naturally they will need to find out about what is going on in their life and in their social life, but they must not be subjected to the risk of corruption. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may find this amusing, but if one leads what is normally a decent life one can stand up and promote traditional family values with confidence and in the knowledge that some people's lives are better protected than others.
It is true that at some time a teenager needs to know the facts of life, but whether a child of five or six needs to be told about homosexuality, as in the book entitled "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", is another matter. I fear that mentioning these subjects at such an early age will tempt a child to find out more and to put into practice at an early age what is best left to a much later age if one has to go down that devious path. That aspect of life can corrupt. As a well-known lady a few days ago said:
The curriculum on sex education is appalling. Young children can be taught the joys of casual sex, every type of contraception, and to regard abortion as just another extension of contraception, with no mention of the fact that a human being is denied life. Even VD comes across as something that can be treated as simply as a case of measles.
That is a sad fact of life.
In a recent survey 80 per cent. of parents questioned said that they would like to have sex education in schools but 53 per cent. said that they wanted to be more involved in the curriculum and 76 per cent. urged that homosexuality should not be taught in the schools—an important point—and 75 per cent. wanted to withdraw their children if they felt the need.
Therefore, there is a genuine threat to our children. As the new pamphlet issued by the Department of Education

and Science for 1986 said, parents should play a major formative role, not only in determining the content of sex education but in deciding whether it takes place at all. The heads, the staff, parents and governing parties decide and need to fully consult each other. The consultation process needs advice from the top as to the books that are acceptable and about protection for our young.
Last night, Haringey passed a motion to bring about a positive image policy for homosexuals. That worries me deeply. The parents there do not want it and are trying to stop it, but effectively it is there already. That is a disgrace and a waste of public funds and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) will be developing that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The most important thing is that a child must never be corrupted. Therefore, we must look at the advantages and disadvantages and dangers of sex education. We must accept that too much ignorance is bad; indeed, just as bad as too much knowledge. As sex education increases, it is clear that much of it is becoming objectionable as too many people have come forward to experiment, and that must be considered a great disadvantage.
Parents are angry. They feel concerned that a number of evil people have taken over the sex education industry. In particular, I name the Family Planning Association, which has done everything in its power to promote some books which have done a lot to corrupt our children. It is clear that such organisations have launched an evil war on marriage and the family and what I and many other hon. Members value deeply. We must never support publicly campaigns for lesbian pupils, as there have been, or action against heterosexism, which it is said is a sexually transmitted disease, or positive promotion of lesbianism. We must not destroy the faith of our young. [Interruption.] It is Labour councillors here in London who make such remarks, doing a lot to corrupt our children. That kind of sex education is unacceptable and is running rife. Parents must always have the opportunity to withdraw their children if they disagree with that kind of filth because they know it corrupts and they know that it is unacceptable to today's society.
Every hon. Member in the House who is a father will know well — [Interruption.] Every hon. Member, a father or a mother, will know well the privilege of having children, the joy of bringing them up and their hope that the children will be brought up in a decent family life where natural things are promoted. The moral is that clean living is the only safeguard for us.
It is essential that we support the family. It is essential that attitudes to sex are taught in a clearly moral framework. The militant voice of those who believe in homosexuality and other practices cannot be considered as normal and we must do everything in our power to stop that. Sex education is a mass of misinformation, misrepresentation and outright fraud and abuse. The term "sex education" conceals far more than it reveals. It conceals a specific social, educational and economic policy which is used to influence sex education and especially the moral values. There is not a shred of evidence that sex education reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies among teenagers. Many more teenagers are being tempted; the number of abortions has increased, as well as the spread of disease. All this has happened with sex education.
Although I want to see the control of sex education maintained, I am not confident that a governing body, with too many Left-wing officials on the newly constituted governing board, will have the opportunity to stop the wrong kind of books being used.
I welcome more parent participation in the governing bodies, but I am not certain that there are enough opportunities for them to override the wish of those bodies. If I went forward and said that I wished to withdraw my child from sex education, the risk is that it would take too long to do so. As yet, the sanctions and the right of appeal have not been clearly spelt out. Why should the onus be on myself, as a parent, to convince all the governing body that I need my child to be withdrawn? Why can I not have the ultimate right to decide when my child needs to be withdrawn? If I do not agree with the sex education in the school surely I should be allowed to withdraw my child.
Many of the provisions before us tonight will not come into practice until 1988—two years before a child can be withdrawn from the sex education lesson. I fear that, by the time one can overturn and replace some of the governors on the governing body—the Left-wing ones who do not believe in the normal way of life—it will be too late. For over a year those children will have been corrupted.
We need an immediate right of withdrawal. We need the right to have our children where they can be best taught—whether in the home or the school. Let us, as parents decide. Why should anyone else tell us what we can or cannot do? An important principle of the Conservative party is that we can opt out of things and we are not force-fed with things with which we do not agree. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment which will ensure that there is an opportunity for a governing body to opt out. I do not want to be the exception and many more parents need the right to exercise their wish to withdraw their child from sex education lessons.
We must clarify the sanctions and appeals procedure to ensure that there is that absolute right, and that, failing that, the child can be withdrawn. Section 68 of the Education Act 1944 gave parents the right to remove a child from a school if they were unhappy about the teaching. That is an important and welcome right, but if sex education is taught at every other school in the area, where does one send the child? The child must come first. The values are implicit and school sex education must be taught better. The material must be listed and books must be banned. Video material must never be used and parents must have the ultimate veto. It is my intention to seek to divide the House on amendment 118 in the name of protecting our children and ensuring that parents have the ultimate say.
My amendment 242 concerns the books that I want to see banned. The amendment would empower the Secretary of State to ban certain books by order if he thinks that they are unsuitable or morally corrupting. In a recent interview, my right hon. Friend discussed a book called "Positive Books on Black People's History" and explained clearly that he has no such right now. I suggest that there are plenty of books that should be banned. They include "Sex Education, The Erroneous Zone", which suggests that girls should have the freedom to choose as many lovers as they wish, and of either sex. "Make it Happy" discusses oral and anal intercourse.
11.15 pm
I am grateful to the Daily Mail which, on Tuesday 23 September published a very useful list. "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin", we know about. It involves a homosexual father, his boyfriend and a five-year-old girl. Is that good for our children? "Make it Happy" encourages masturbation, group sex and bestiality. The BMA's "Sex for Beginners" calls for experiments in bondage. Are these the type of books that should be in our schools? "The Rights of Children" is used in social awareness classes in London where they talk about rape and consent to sexual intercourse.
What about "The Playbook for Kids About Sex", a Sheba feminist publication which encourages tiny children aged five to draw pictures of their naked bodies? "13iology for Life" includes homosexuality as an alternative in its sex without pregnancy chapter. It is being used as a possible curriculum workbook for the general certificate of secondary education. "Growing Up: A Guide for Children and Parents" shows pictures of aborted embryos and sexual organs in close-up. "Talking Sex" is the type of book for which we should have no place in our society. "Talking about Youth Work", "Talking about Young Lesbians" — I am grateful to Rachel Tingle who has published a book called "Gay Lessons"—are the type of books that must be banned. They discuss experiences of being gay at school, encouraging gay as the norm. "One Teenager in Ten" boasts about coming out. "A Boy's Own Story" involves a threesome orgy. "The Milkman's On His Way", deals with the awakening homosexuality of a working-class boy. Are these the type of books that we want in our schools?
I urge right hon. and hon. Members to treat this matter with the seriousness that it deserves. Not one of these books should appear in any school. If my amendment were accepted, children who are forced to go through sex education would not be corrupted by the present devious and immoral stand. We must do our best to protect those children. The new governing bodies need all the help that we can give them. It is quite clear that amendment No. 232 will be accepted. I will support it as a step in the right direction, but I pray that my right hon. Friend will outlaw the books that I have mentioned to ensure that children are not corrupted, that there is normal family life and that sex is not made obscene or spoilt by disgraceful books that are being promoted in schools, especially in London. The House should stand up for children's rights, protect parents and help the young to ensure that there is a better future for them in schools.

Mr. Freud: I follow an hon. Member who clearly did not benefit from sexual education—if he received any. I shall be brief. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and we discussed sex education at length.
I welcome the Minister to her new post. I had great respect for her predecessor and I hope that she and I will work together as amicably. The Bill provides a balance of power between local education authorities and governing bodies and I can see no good reason why sex education should be made an exception. There is great worry among educationists that one subject of all the subjects taught in school should be the responsibility of governors, while the rest of the curriculum remains the responsibility of the LEAs.
The Secretary of State talks about the homogenous band of industrialists who will be brought on to school governing bodies. We welcome them, but if a local highflying industrialist with management ability asks about the responsibility of a school governor and is told that his main responsibility is for sex education and not for the curriculum, that will be a disincentive to such an industrialist.
I am sorry that any hon. Member should argue against sex education for children, because I believe that a child's right to know should override a parent's right to obscure.
There is to be a Division on amendment No. 118. I have had letters from many fundamental Christians, from Plymouth Brethren, asking me to support the amendment. I have great sympathy for those people and I looked at the case carefully, but I believe that children who are withdrawn from sex education are at most risk, because they know little. Christianity is the teaching of love and trust, but, much as one appreciates love and trust, the child who believes in loving and trusting everyone and who has no sex education is greatly at risk from child molesters. I know that parents have a duty, but I also know that parents who do not want their children to be taught about sex are least likely to teach those children themselves.
I appreciate that if 60 hon. Members sign an amendment there is substantial support for it, but I ask hon. Members with open minds to think again. Allowing a parent to withdraw a child from sex education is doing a substantial disservice to the child, just as going too far in the other direction can be wrong.
There is a campaign in my constituency called "Danger Stranger" in which children are taught that people they do not know are dangerous. They draw pictures of strangers who are all 6 ft 9 in tall and have black beards and electric eyes. But the vast majority of sexual attacks on children are committed by people whom they know well, and it is a substantial mistake to say that we shall teach children nothing or teach them that all people are dangerous.
There is also to be a Division on amendment No. 114, which would remove the clause from the Bill. I do not think that we desperately need the Bill, but I know that we do not desperately need the clause. The Secretary of State needs the London boroughs of Brent and Haringey because if he and they did not have each other to complain about I do not know what they would do. There are problems with loony LEAs, but they cannot be tackled through legislation. We believe that passing the clause would bring Parliament into considerable disrepute. The clause is simplistic and fairly dangerous nonsense.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) reminded us in Committee that the HMI produced a sober and sane report. It runs to considerable length and. as if to obviate that report and to ignore the good sense behind it, we have a six and a half line clause which will do nothing for children but a lot for the legal profession.
I commend amendment No. 114 to the House. We have always believed that if we cannot come up with an acceptable alternative, it is as well to stick to what we have.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I must start with an incontrovertible statement of fact. Every right hon. and hon. Member has a mother, but only one of them has me as a mother. I congratulate by hon. Friend on trying to meet the objections and anxieties of many parents. He

wants to create a framework for sex education in schools which is appropriate, moral and kept within certain confines. In my view he has failed on one fundamental issue. He has failed to give parents a prescriptive right as individuals to opt out on behalf of their children. It is possible for them to opt out, but there is no certainty. That is a great flaw in the amendment.
In such a debate it is easy to over-generalise. It is very easy to say that all parents are better at teaching their children about sex, or that any teacher is better than any parent. Neither is true. Some parents will be better than teachers and some teachers will be better than parents. On balance, the parent is usually most aware of the sensitive nature of their children and at what age their child is ready for sex education.
The draft directive to LEAs about sex education accepts that there is a right age and that it is variable. How are teachers to know the right age for each child, and if they do know, how will they segregate the children if the right age is different for each child?
My granddaughter aged nine asked her mother—my daughter—after reading a newspaper story, what was a sexual attack. My daughter then knew that the time had come for her child to be told the basic facts. No teacher could be provided with that sensitive information. Teachers are not in such close contact as parents.
Teachers might make judgments which are irrelevant to a child's needs. Moreover it is the parents who are unsuitable to teach their own children about sex who are least likely to want to opt out of sex education at school. The responsible parent who is worried about the curriculum is more likely to want to opt out.
Far too much emphasis is placed on irrelevant and damaging information in too many schools. We all know about the lunacy of ILEA and I shall not list the books involved. But the attitude is widespread throughout the country. It varies between schools and governing bodies, but I believe that the Minister's guidelines are not restrictive enough.
The Minister could have set down in the Bill a set of simple and clear principles. There should be a fundamental facts of life, birds and bees—call it what we will—sex education programme for children at about the age of nine or 10, which would not need to extend beyond one class and one question and answer session. That should be followed with a further class at about the age of 12 or 13, which may refer to homosexuality, describing it as abnormal and undesirable, and which must refer to all the health hazards, especially those that arise out of promiscuity such as cervical cancer and AIDS, which have been medically proven beyond doubt. There is no necessity to go beyond that and talk about sexual problems or sexual politics. A short two-step course in school is highly necessary if a child is not receiving guidance at home, but more than that is not necessary.
11.30 pm
I fail to understand the passage in a letter from the previous Minister, which we all received in August, to the effect that it was impossible to give parents the option of withdrawing their children from sex education, because the subject permeated a wider curriculum and it would cause massive disruption if a child were withdrawn. Indeed, the letter suggested that a school would find the position unmanageable if that were to happen. How was that true in August, when in October the present Minister


said that parents would be given the option to withdraw their children? If it was impossible and unmanageable in August, why was it not so in October? The answer is that the previous Minister's civil servants told him that sex education permeated the whole curriculum. It does, but not at an age where it matters. By the time a child is likely to have a D. H. Lawrence book, in the school curriculum he is likely to have reached A-level standard and will have had his sex education considerably earlier. By the time a child reaches even O-level biology, he will have had his primary sex education lessons. By the time that a child reaches points in history that may be relevant or which give rise to sexual questions, he will have had his basic sex education. Therefore, it was ridiculous to say in the first place that it was impossible to withdraw a child because the curriculum is permeated. That happens at an advanced stage in the child's education. It was possible then and it is possible now. The step taken by the present Minister is progressive and what was said previously was regressive.
If any hon. Member thinks that that sort of permeation does not exist throughout the country, he is quite wrong. There was a disturbing case in my constituency where a girl aged 164½, who had already had her basic sex education, was singled out by an English teacher, as no part of her curriculum and her set books, and given a book called "Sexual Politics" about feminism, sexuality and such matters. I read the book, and thought it very silly. It was laced with unnecessary pornographic extracts from other books, and was most offensive. That girl had a nervous breakdown and was withdrawn from school. She later returned to school and was once again singled out by the same teacher who had given her that book.
I complained to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to whom I pay tribute. He went to the trouble of reading the book—which I do not think many Ministers would have done. It was most diligent of him. He wrote to me saying that he would be disturbed to see the book set as reading material in schools and that he considered it quite unsuitable for use in schools. I communicated this to the chairman of the education committee, who did not even reply to my letter. 1 asked him to give an assurance to my constituent that the book would not be included in the curriculum of any schools in my constituency and his reply was "No comment". The man's name is not Bernie Grant. He is not on the Inner London education authority and he is not even a Labour chairman. He is a Liberal chairman. He is an inoffensive, avuncular, family sort of person. He is also ineffectual and—

Mr. Nicholls: —a bit of a drip.

Mrs. Oppenheim: That is as may be. He is just the sort of person who might be chosen as one of these new parent governors. I do not even know whether he is a parent, and that is the danger. I wonder what chance that girl's mother would have had against a governing body composed even in the new way that is proposed. How would such governing bodies react if at the time of their annual report a substantial minority of parents objected to the curriculum and the text of any particular book, parents whose feelings may be very strong as individuals and well founded? Would they effectively be disfranchised as parents?
I cannot accept the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His amendment does not give parents a prescriptive right to use their own judgment

about their own children, which I believe is a fundamental right, although I give him high marks for trying. Sensible, moderate and family-oriented sex education has never been more important than it is now because the dangers have never been greater, both in terms of political subversion and of deadly health risks. To deny parents the right of control in such an area can only undermine their crucial role as parents, their authority and what many of them consider to be their fundamental rights.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) was right when she said that on balance it is better for sex education to be given by parents than by teachers. That is especially so when the relationship between the parent or parents who give it and the children is a close and intimate one, where those parents are able to respond to the questions that children ask at various stages in their development. The right hon. Lady knows, however, and we all know, alas, that there are many parents who do not give sex education, that there are many other parents who give it and do it badly, and that there are unfortunately families where the relationship between the parent and the children makes it impossible for that sort of sex education to be given.
We would all agree that ideally sex education should be given within the family, but that is not always possible. Therefore, it seems to me—and I agree with the right hon. Lady—that there is a strong case for sex education in schools. I want to go further than that, but it seems extraordinary that she and others who have spoken from the Government Benches should imply that the only source of information available to growing children about sex is either the parent or the teacher. That is not the position. We live in a society in which the popular press, the media, advertisements and even pornography is available to children. When I taught in a comprehensive school in London years ago, I found extraordinary bits of pornography in the possession of the children whom I was teaching.
For anyone to suggest that children who do not receive sex education from their parents or from teachers are not being influenced and are not learning about sex must surely be very far from the situation which exists in our schools. This is a development in our society that has taken place over the past few decades. I am sure that the average child at school now knows far more about sex, abortion and sexual deviation than most of us, if not all of us in the House, knew when we were at a similiar age.
It is inevitable that if children do not get sex education from parents or teachers, they are likely to be misled by misinformation and salacious material. That seems to me to make sex education in schools not merely desirable but essential. I was delighted to hear the Minister use the word "essential" in her speech. Indeed, she wrote to all hon. Members on 16 October and on that occasion used the word. She regarded it as "essential". Therefore, it was extraordinary to me, when I read the letter—I do not know whether other hon. Members had a similar experience—and saw that it was "essential" for children to have sex education, to read elsewhere in the letter:
The governors will be responsible for deciding … whether sex education should be given in a school … and would also have the discretion to allow individual pupils to be withdrawn from sex education lessons at parental request.
If the Minister really believes it to be essential for children to have sex education, I cannot understand the amendments, nor can I understand the contents of the


letter she wrote to all hon. Members. I am quite convinced that there is a need for sex education. Therefore, I strongly support it. However, that does not mean that I support the new clause. It seems extraordinary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, said, that it has been tacked on at this stage and that the Government did not think of it first. The Government have acted in response to pressure on them. I have received hardly any letters from my constituents on this subject. Quite frankly, I wonder whether a concerted attempt has been made by a number of hon. Members to put pressure on the Government, and the consequence is that kind of contradiction in Government statements, the Minister's speech and the letter she wrote to hon. Members. The Government do not know where they stand.
In this debate there has been a great emphasis, and the proposed new clause places great emphasis, on the importance of family life. The Department of Education and Science and Her Majesty's inspectorate have long recognised, quite properly, that there is a variety of patterns of family life in this country, and that to talk of the nuclear family with mum, dad and a couple of kids as though it were the pattern for everybody is not merely inaccurate in terms of society but is deeply offensive to certain children who come from homes not of that form. HMI's document entitled "Health Education from 5–16" recognises that teachers need to respect different patterns of family life and the variety of cultural influences brought to schools by pupils. The assumption that all pupils belong to nuclear families with two parents present can be wounding and insensitive to children who, for example, live in single parent families.
Anyone who represents constituencies in inner cities and in inner London will know of the high proportion of children who come from single parent families and that an overemphasis of the kind with which the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) presented us, of the nuclear family with father and mother, may be deeply wounding to children who do not come from such families. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to shake his head, but I am quite convinced that that could be the case. It could also be the case where parents are divorced. There is no question in my mind that a great deal of sensitivity is required in sex education.
A worrying amount of information is coming out about the degree to which incest takes place. Children grow up in some families in very worrying circumstances. Some children grow up in families in which one parent is homosexual or has homosexual tendencies. For the House to dismiss all that and pretend that there is another kind of world — a world in which there is not a mass of salacious material produced in the media, in which the vast majority of families are nuclear families that clearly are considered in the legislation—seems to me to be quite wrong. It is mistaken and could be damaging. That is the main reason why I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) about the need to defeat this clause and throw it out.
11.45 pm
I thought that most Conservative Members were against declaratory legislation. Much of this clause is declaratory. If it is not, it is liable to lead to vexatious

legislation. I am doubtful about placing the responsibility of providing sex education in the hands of governors. This point has already been well expressed. In the best schools, this responsibility has properly lain with the professionals — the teachers. In doing that job, teachers have cooperated closely with parents. It would be extraordinary if governors had to announce publicly whether their school provided sex education, giving dramatic importance to but one important part of the curriculum.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: This point is essential to the hon. Gentleman's argument on the role of teachers. Does he advocate that teachers should adopt the position of agnosticism when talking about such issues?

Mr. Barnett: Certainly not. I believe—and I am sure that the House agrees—that this is a difficult, sensitive subject on which it is impossible to legislate. Teachers need guidance from HMI, the Department of Education and Science, college courses, and so on about the problems of sex education. I regret the suggestion that the responsibility for sex education may properly be taken away from teachers and that teachers may be irresponsible in the way in which they do the job of sex education. The vast majority of teachers do that job responsibly. To quote a few isolated examples of abuse is no reason for legislation.

Mr. Clive Soley: Is not the problem the fact that Conservative Members are trying to impose on teachers a moral framework which they cannot even adequately define?

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend has made an important point with which I agree. For the reasons which I have given, I should like the whole clause to be deleted.

Mr. Pawsey: My first inclination was to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr Bruinvels) who spoke to it with his customary mix of honesty and enthusiasm. [Interruption.] I mean that sincerely. But the debate has moved on and a new dimension has been added to the Bill. I believe that the solution offered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State is in the best interests of the pupil and the school.
I accept the need for sex education in schools and acknowledge that in many homes sex education is not a subject of discussion between parents and children. Clearly it is unwise for children to grow up in an atmosphere of ignorance and innuendo. Knowledge gained in such a way is not particularly helpful to a healthy understanding of sex. For that reason, I believe that it should be taught in schools, but taught in a caring, sensitive way, with proper regard to morals and ethics. If children are withdrawn from sex education classes, one of the problems will be their supervision. At a time when teachers are under pressure, the prospect of several children outside a class trying to study independently will undoubtedly cause problems in many schools.
The thought occurs to me, as I am sure it occurs to many other hon. Members, that those children who have been excluded from sex education lessons will undoubtedly talk to the other members of the class to find out what was going on. The information they receive will not necessarily reflect the material of those lessons. Those children will receive a garbled version. The pupils excluded from those lessons will probably receive the worst of all worlds, for


they will receive picturesque descriptions from their fellow pupils which need not bear any close relationship to what was taught in the classroom. Also, although sex education is principally taught in one specific lesson, it must impinge on others, for example, biology. If a parent has the right to withdraw a child from one lesson, is it not right and proper that the child be withdrawn from others? It would seem that a precedent may be established with consequences not readily foreseen at this time.
That having been said, I recognise the strong feelings that undoubtedly exist on this subject. I certainly understand the apprehension which many parents feel, especially in the light of some of the appalling literature we have heard described this evening. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and others who have drawn the House's attention to some of the rubbish and pornographic material which is circulated in our schools. Indeed, some recent examples seem designed to titillate rather than to educate.
The Government amendment ensures that school governing bodies will have the right to approve the material being used. They will have the right to decide whether sex education is to be taught. Surely that is the essence. The new governing bodies will be strengthened and parents will have representation equal to that of the LEA so that they will have the right to express an opinion on the type of material being used. That is an important safeguard and it is for that reason that I believe that it will do much to reassure parents who are concerned about the moral welfare of their children.
I also believe that many parents, knowing this, will do their utmost to serve on those governing bodies, thus ensuring that the quality of governors is much better than perhaps it is at present. I have argued for a long time that parents know best what is right for their children, and I believe that they will have the right to express that within a school governing body. If that is not an adequate safeguard, bear in mind that there is now a public annual general meeting of each school. That means that the parents who are not on the governing body will have an opportunity to cross-examine in detail and in public the school governing body and the head teacher. If they are dissatisfied with the way in which sex education is being taught or the type of material being used, they will have the opportunity of bringing that out into the open and ensuring that the governors and the headmaster answer the searching questions that will undoubtedly be put to them. Nothing so concentrates the parental mind as the prospect of their child being adversely influenced by some of the material which we have heard mentioned in the debate. If governors and head teachers have to answer to those aggrieved parents in public, it will ensure that the teaching of sex education is undertaken in a responsible way.
I welcome the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I genuinely believe that it will provide parents with the reassurance that they need. Its general drive and thrust are in keeping with the remainder of the Bill.

Mr. Flannery: I oppose amendment No. 118. When Viscount Buckmaster introduced his amendment in the other place, he put the Government on the horns of a dilemma. A welter of confusion has now been built up so that nobody knows where he is. The fundamentalists and bigots have pronounced on this subject, and we have heard

some of them tonight. When the noble Viscount tried to befog the issue of what was happening to the schools due to a lack of money, he worded the amendment to stress
regard to moral considerations and the value of family life.
The Government could not resist using such lovely words, having tried to persuade us over the years that they were the party of morality and family life, as though nobody else and no other party could be. [Interruption.] As I said, the bigots are speaking tonight, and they can be heard on the Government Benches.
It is clear that the Conservatives do not know where they are on this subject. Indeed, they sent hon. Members two letters expressing differing views. The first, dated 7 August, said that the Government could not possibly allow a provision to permit the withdrawal of children from sex education, claiming that
any such right would be wholly inappropriate in the secular curriculum.
Having made that claim, the Government realised that they had blundered, and at the Tory party conference the Minister had to intervene. But he did not quite know what to do—whether to leave it with those wicked teachers who could not possibly tackle the subject properly, or do something else. In the event, he decided to take the sensitive question of sex education—a subject which is often not even discussed by parents with their children —away from the teachers and place it in other hands. Not knowing in which hands to place it, he finally decided to give it to the governors. Thus, having said that he would not permit children to be withdrawn from sex education, he contradicted himself by saying that school governors would have that right.
The Tories are in a dilemma on this issue because they have not properly studied it. The wickedness is not in the schools but outside. Considering the amount of pornography that is available to people, including children, any fair-minded person must accept that sex education is already taught in a reasonable, responsible and sensitive manner. Obviously, considering the large numbers, somebody somewhere will not tackle it properly or will publish a book with which we do not agree or which causes problems. Educating our children is difficult enough, especially in this sensitive area, and the vast majority of parents value the way in which teachers help to prepare our young people for adult life.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I will not give way and I wish to be brief. Teachers, Her Majesty's Inspectors and the members of locally elected authorities are trying all the time to improve their approach to the sensitive subject of sex education. It ill-becomes people who know little about it to hurl abuse at those who are grappling with this delicate subject and who are doing their best for our children.
The vast majority of parents want schools to continue with sex education because leading studies have shown that few girls and even fewer boys discuss the subject with their mothers, so delicate an issue is it. Because parents are so timid to discuss sex matters with their children, the schools have an important, though difficult, role to play. The reality is that few problems arise about sex education. Some hon. Members are trying to multiply the problems for some curious political gain. They are muddying already difficult waters.
We should beware of bigotry. We should beware of the kind of speech made by the hon. Member for Leicester,


East (Mr. Bruinvels), which was a disgrace to the people and teachers of Leicester. If one board of governors is different from another and makes its own decisions, many different decisions will be taken about the education of our children in many areas. That is the dilemma which the Minister has imposed on the Conservative party and the rest of us at a time when sex education is becoming better and more sensitive than it has ever been in our lifetimes.

12 midnight

Mr. William Shelton: Most of us would agree that of course sex education should be taught in schools. I believe that most of us would qualify that by saying that it should be well taught. My speech will be shorter than I had intended as I am following the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). I agree with almost everything that she said and I do not want to repeat her points.
To pick up on a point made earlier, when I refer to good sex education, I do not mean agnostic sex education. I mean sex education associated with moral values and rights and wrongs related to some of the penalties which might befall one if sex is misused.
It is no good the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) saying that the vast majority of teachers and governing bodies are responsible. Indeed they are. However, what about the youngsters who come up against the irresponsible ones? Irresponsible teachers and governors may he a minority, but to the child and the parents involved, that represents 100 per cent. of the control over what the child is taught.
I was leafing through the magazine called "ILEA Contact" produced by the Inner London education authority. For those hon. Members who are not privileged to be representatives of Inner London constituencies, "ILEA Contact" is a magazine edited by ILEA and sent out every two weeks. I leafed through the letters page of the issue produced on 17 October. Two of the four letters are in support of gays. One is from a gay teacher working in an ILEA school. It states:
It is time for the ILEA to state that to present positive images of lesbians and gays in schools is an integral part of its equal opportunities policies.
The other letter is signed by teachers in the Hurlingham and Chelsea School NUT group. That letter refers to the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". In that letter the group states that they
feel that the book presents a loving, caring homosexual relationship in a very positive way and as such should be on the open shelves … classified with books on 'Families'.
They have every right to hold these opinions. However, most of us would agree that we would not wish those teachers to teach our children sex education. Opposition Members must at least have some small qualms about their children being taught by such teachers. If they have no such qualms, I am sure that their wives would have.
A minority of teachers may not be appropriate to teach sex education and a parent might face that minority. For that reason, I give a limited welcome to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's suggestion, and that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom I congratulate upon her new appointment, that a parent may go to a board of governors and state that they wish to withdraw

a child because they do not like the teacher. I cannot find that clearly stated in the amendment. I have the Minister of State's letter which states:
The governors would also have the discretion to allow individual pupils to be withdrawn from sex education lessons at parental request.
However, nowhere can I see that right stated in the amendment. I hope that my right hon. Friend has not made a horrible mistake and left that out of the amendment. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will assure the House that that right will be made available and will point out exactly where it can be found in the amendments, because I cannot find it.
I say a "limited" welcome because a minority of boards of governors — my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester drew attention to one Liberal chairman of a board of governors — will cause some difficulties. Parents will go to those boards of governors, who will say, "No, we think that you are absolutely wrong. We think that your child should read 'Jenny lives with Eric and Martin'." What does a parent do in those circumstances? Some parents will have deep religious feelings about sex education, and their strongly held religious beliefs should allow them to withdraw their children from sex education. I believe that they should be permitted to do so. They may be wrong, but they should have that right if, on grounds of religious persuasion, they believe that their children should be withdrawn from sex education in school. Even if it is good and moral sex education, they should have that right.
Although my welcome for my right hon. Friend's suggestion is limited, I shall support it. I shall also support amendment No. 118, which I suspect will not carry the day, because that is probably the way in which the House should vote.

Mr. Rogers: I speak in this debate with a great deal of humility, in that, although I am the father of four children who are now adults—one is a doctor and another a teacher — I still have not found the right prescription that I could offer to the House for educating children in relationships. One sad thing about this debate is that "sex education" is used as such a bald term. I hope that we are talking about education in relationships between people and between adults and children. I do not have a prescription for this. When I talk to my daughter, who is a doctor in general practice, and who I hope will soon make me a grandfather, about these issues, I do not know what to advise her and she does not know what to advise me.
What really saddens me about the debate is that, although the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) said many good things in his speech, he overstated his argument strongly and politicised issues that do not belong to politics. This is one difficulty in approaching such a problem. I can say genuinely that I do not know how I will vote. I know what I will not vote for, but I am not sure what I will vote for. I do not wish to present myself as someone who does not understand the matter, because I understand the problems that parents face today in trying to bring their children into the adult world.
One thing that we do not want is for our children to be subject to pressures before their minds are capable of coping with the dilemmas that come from those pressures.
My aim as a parent was to try to protect my children until they were mature enough to make up their minds, not


just in sexual relationships but in all matters. If we could approach the debate in that light, we would be much further along the right road.
I do not wish to delay the House too much at this time of night, but I hope that hon. Members appreciate that no family is an island in this day and age. The hon. Member for Leicester, East should remember that. He cannot create a ghetto from his family. There are too many pressures upon children these days. When we say how bad children are today, we should remember that children are subject to pressures today to which we were never subjected as children. I feel sorry for children today. Through the media, literature and other available material, they are under enormous pressure. That is why it is important that the family—I do not know what a "nuclear" family means—whether it has one parent or two parents, should be able to impart this knowledge and to protect its children without these enormous pressures.
Kids today need protection. Amendment No. 116 is important because it sets out all that should be taught under the guise of sex relationship education or however one describes it. It refers to
the promotion of happy and stable relationships between partners
and who could argue with that as an educative principle? It goes on to refer to
the pattern of family structures in the area of the authority,
which may be single-parent or two-parent families, and
the likely impact of such education on children in nontraditional family structures or in care
because even today, unfortunately, many children are still in care and not living in what might be described as a normal family. It also refers to
the values of ethnic and religious minorities
which I can appreciate as I come from a country with a substantial minority element especially in terms of language. That problem has also been highlighted by the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) in his amendments Nos. 135 and 136.
Amendment No. 116 also includes the words:
the availability and proper use of contraception".
What is wrong with that being included in the educative process? I might have reservations about
the availability of, and legal provisions relating to, abortion".
because like many hon. Members I do not believe in abortion as a form of contraception, but that makes it all the more important that innocent young children should be given some kind of sex education so that they do not need to resort to abortion, particularly the back-street variety which unfortunately is still available.
I ask the supporters of amendment No. 118 why they would want to withdraw their children from the form of education that I have described. I make this point in conclusion as I do not wish to arouse the hostility of Members, perhaps on both sides, who may speak with a measure of hypocrisy on this, but my children have been educated in the state system and therefore subject to the legislation applying to that system. Perhaps Members who have opted out of that system should search their hearts before legislating for children in the state system when their own children are perhaps at public schools and not subject to it.

Mr. Steve Norris: I approach this issue very seriously, as I am sure do all hon. Members, because although it may not be the most important issue in the Bill

it is one that has concerned a great many Members and therefore one on which we must be very careful in our deliberations.
Having started with the same interest as others, however, I am in some difficulty in relation to the various solutions so far proposed both by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I will explain briefly why. With regard to my hon. Friend's proposals, if sex education were confined to a lesson in school with the simple device of an opt-out clause for parents who did not wish what might in some cases be regarded as a dubious facility to be imposed on their children I suspect that there would be little dissent on either side of the House about the provision of such a facility, but sadly that is not the case.
12.15 am
Having been a member of the Committee which considered the Bill and therefore to an extent forewarned about the issues involved in this question, I took the trouble to ask upper schools in my city of Oxford about their policy on sex education. Indeed, they confirmed what my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) said when he was Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, that none of them teach sex education per se on the syllabus. There is not a lesson to which a parent who wishes to withdraw his child from the system can be directed, saying that that is the lesson to which his child should not belong.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East has the very best intentions in moving his amendment and I commend him for the interest that he has shown, but none the less it is a delusion to imagine that by arming oneself with this so-called protection of the right to opt out we shall be giving parents anything at all. In practice, sex education will continue to be carried out in all those other subjects on the curriculum which will riot be readily identifiable. Indeed, if one were to take the principle to its logical conclusion and withdraw the child from all the possible lessons on the curriculum in which the subject of sex might be taught, the child would be going to school for about 15 hours a week and no more. That is a well-intentioned amendment but it has that fundamental flaw and that is why I cannot support it.
However, sufficient attention has not been paid in the debate so far tonight to the wording of clause 26. As I argued in Committee, and beg the indulgence of the House to argue briefly again, to use words such as
due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life
may make a lot of sense to lawyers but will in practice only make a lot of money for lawyers.
In the early part of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State whether, when she was referring to the value of family life, she meant the Christian family life. Her reply on that occasion, possibly unwittingly, showed just what sort of difficulties we shall get ourselves into if we believe that that simple and rather neat form of words will present teachers with the guidance that they need in order to construct the form of their sex education lessons.
We have all heard, and Opposition Members have made this doubly clear tonight, of those who will argue that the nuclear family is now out-dated and that we


should be prepared to consider that the value of family life might not simply be expressed in that conventional form which I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in Britain would understand, but that it can be equally expressed in slightly less, dare I say, normal forms of family life, a great many examples of which they would no doubt seek to enumerate. Therefore, we are looking at a lawyers' paradise if we look at the words in clause 26 for any comfort at all on this issue.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's suggestion is that we should give the responsibility to governors. That is an innocuous enough proposal and it saves me from the prospect of having to vote against it. It does not improve the situation but it does not make it any worse. But what my right hon. Friend is suggesting is the exact opposite of what, in what I thought was an extremely well-reasoned speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) pointed out was the case—that there will be just as many loony governing bodies quite prepared to put inappropriate material in the curriculum as there are loony members of ILEA teacher co-operatives prepared to write to "ILEA Contact" and say how important they think "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin" is for a balanced sex education curriculum. Passing the buck to school governors will not do any good at all in that small minority of cases where any reasonable parent would be reasonably entitled to be worried about the kind of education that his child was getting.
I draw the attention of the House to what I believe is the redemption of this problem. It is possibly the only practical solution that I have yet encountered. In a recent circular, the Department of Education and Science issued specific guidance to teachers on the subject of sex education.

Mr. Radice: Excellent.

Mr. Norris: This cannot be right, because the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has just agreed with me, but I shall pursue it none the less. The circular said that one could not sum up a subject as complex as sex education in a couple of simple, however well-meaning trite phrases. It stated that one could not solve the problem by giving parents a single opt-out clause or by deciding that governing bodies rather than teachers, parents, head teachers or local education authorities should be responsible. The circular stated that teachers ought to teach children sensibly, responsibly, unhysterically and in a balanced way. The circular allowed for a detailed exposition of the arguments involved in each of the difficult areas and it therefore made coherent sense.
I have not heard any hon. Member object to its contents. The welcome which the hon. Member for Durham North gave it is shared throughout the professions and by politicians of all colours. It is a welcome guide on how sex education should be delivered in schools.
The only practical solution to the degree of parental and Parliamentary concern which has been expressed tonight and on other occasions is to consider that circular as the basis for a comprehensive code of practice. It should be the duty and obligation of local authorities to have regard to it. It specifies the variety of subjects to be involved and what responsible teachers should be teaching

and the kind of material to be used. It considers how teachers should form young minds and at what stage those young minds should be formed.
I recommend hon. Members to reject the trite solutions which they may feel offer them an opportunity to express their revulsion at some of the extremely odd and thankfully unusual examples that we have heard tonight. I share their wish to express that revulsion but I counsel them to reject the simplistic solutions contained in amendment No. 118. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, hon. Members should have grave reservations about the idea that the problem will be solved by giving the responsibility to the governors. We should press now and in the future for a comprehensive code of guidance to be available in all schools in all authorities.

Mr. Allen McKay: When I came to the Chamber today I did not know which way I would be voting, but as the debate has gone on I have made up my mind.
It seems to me that a lot of us here have forgotten our sex education, the way it was taught, how and why, when and where. We have also forgotten that people outside the House live in totally different ways from what we think. Unfortunately, in this debate one or two bad examples have been given and some hon. Members would take a broad brush across the entire education system and all the teachers because of the one or two bad eggs. That is the wrong way to go about it.
I am concerned that the Secretary of State has decided to give the governors the choice of whether to have sex education in schools. It seems to me that the Secretary of State did not want to make the decision and that the easiest thing was to put the responsibility on the shoulders of others who can make the decision for him. That is wrong. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the governors of schools do not work with regard to such practicalities. In practice, governors only meet four times a year—that is, if they are lucky. They do not always turn up at all four meetings, so why put the responsibility on governors when we have an honourable teaching profession?
Another matter which worries me, and about which I have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for assurances, which he has given, which is why I shall be able to follow him through the Lobby, is that we already teach sex education in schools in my area. Parents are happy about that, because it is taught to them first. They are brought into schools and shown the books and aids that will be used, and told how the subject will be approached. They are also given the opportunity to withdraw their children, but none have done so. I would not like anything to harm that system, which is working.
We have made heavy weather of the debate and probably approached the subject in the wrong way. We have probably highlighted the subject more as a result of the debate and made problems for schools rather that than got rid of them. I now know which way I will vote. I once thought that it would be with the Secretary of State, but it will not. It will not be with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who had some good points but went over the top. I am sure that I will be able to vote for the Liberal amendment as well.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud)


rather glibly dismissed the parents of Haringey as not deserving any protection by statute. I happen to represent about half of those parents and I venture to proffer a different opinion. I therefore listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say about the effect of clause 26 and the Government's amendments to see whether protection exists. If there is no protection in statute for the parents of Haringey, they will not receive it from the local authority.
Virtually all hon. Members will have seen in their evening papers a report of the disgraceful and scandalous scenes which occurred in the council chamber of the London borough of Flaringey last night, when a group of parents calling themselves the Parents Rights Group—they are of all political parties and of none—went to the council to ask whether they could be heard in regard to the education of their children. They were shouted down, spat upon and urinated upon. Every conceivable obscenity was hurled upon them, and threats of physical violence were made. One was reminded that she lives near Broadwater farm estate.
The group wished to present a petition which reads,
We do not want lesbian or gay lessons in our schools from nursery schools upwards.
There are some 5,000 signatures. As the borough of Haringey is not prepared to treat this matter seriously, the only recourse that I have is to hand the petition to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with another petition signed by 140 parents of the Bounds Green Infants school which says,
We the undersigned object most strongly to the teaching of positive images of homosexuality to our children in Haringey schools.
I hand that one also to my right hon. Friend.
The House may wish to know the background to last night's incident. There is now in circulation in my constituency a document called the Labour party manifesto for the last May elections. It was not much in evidence before those elections or, I hazard a guess, the outcome would have been somewhat different.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is smirking, has seen the document. It is written in the name of his party. I shall read the section headed:
Lesbian and Gay Rights".
It says:
The Labour Party declares its commitment to fighting heterosexism.
That is defined:
Heterosexism is the belief and practice that heterosexuality is the only natural form of sexuality.
In other words, homosexuality and lesbianism are equally normal forms of sexuality. How does that affect education? The document says:
The Labour Council will support the right of all teachers and other educational workers to be openly lesbian or gay at work … The Labour Council will also begin the process of ensuring that lesbianism and gayness are treated positively in the curriculum.
The document says that, in order to further those aims, the council will establish a fund for
curriculum projects from nursery through to further education, which are specifically designed … to promote positive images of gay men and lesbians".
12.30 am
How will the Bill protect parents and children from that sort of education when there is a definite and aggressive proselytisation by gays and lesbians to bring as many

people as they can into their camp? I know that the majority of parents in my constituency would not tolerate such an approach, but what can they do about it?
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), suggested that the problem will be settled by the new powers to be given to school governors. The LEA will have little to say about these matters, which will be determined by the parent-governors. But how will those governors be appointed'? They will be elected by parents who will hold meetings, perhaps in the same conditions that prevailed at last night's Haringey council meeting. how many parents will want to go through that sort of ordeal every month to try to put forward their point of view and protect their children from influences which those parents regard—rightly or wrongly — as evil? How will they be protected?
Hon. Members may say that I am exaggerating and that parents will come forward. However, is the House aware that there is one council employee for every seven ratepayers in Haringey? It does not require much culculation to see where the recruitment will come, especially as employees are reminded all the time that as they receive pay from the council they are expected to support council policy at all times.

Mr. Fisher: Come on.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) lives in a fantasy, middle-class world and does not appreciate the reality of what is happening in parts of our metropolis. Has he not heard of entryism in his party? That has resulted in the Haringey Labour party becoming what it is. It has happened to other local parties and I am telling the House about what is being done in the name of the Labour party. I am sure that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen would not add their names to the sort of manifesto that I have quoted, but local parties are fighting elections on such platforms and claim that they have a manifesto to carry out those policies.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hugh Rossi: No. The hour is late. The hon. Gentleman made his speech, and I did not interrupt him.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hugh Rossi: No.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is not giving way.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The parents' group attempted to speak to the teachers in Haringey to see what their attitude would be if it became council policy to provide such education. The answer they received from the head-teachers was, "We are terribly sorry but we cannot discuss these matters with you. We are paid by the council. Please remember that."
That is the political climate in which people in Haringey are living. They look to this House, to the Government, to protect them from the kind of people who are now in control of their area. I am far from satisfied that the legislation goes far enough to give that protection. Unless parents have— with all its faults and difficulties— the


right to withdraw their children from classes in schools where that sort of thing is taught, we shall have a very unfortunate generation of children.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has said that certain things are being taught in Haringey. He must be fair to the House. He knows that it is not correct. Many of the statements he quoted from the manifesto were, rightly, published before the last election by the Labour party and have been circulated by the local education authority. There is a very big difference between the things published in the sheets from which he quoted and any circulars that have been given to teachers in Haringey. The hon. Gentleman should admit that these things are not yet being taught and that they have not yet been circulated by the local education authority.

Sir Hugh Rossi: These matters are not yet being taught, but presumably it is intended that they should be taught. Part of the manifesto has already been implemented to the extent of setting up a gay-lesbian unit within the local authority involving six or seven paid officers whose job it is to go right through the system to ensure that such ideas are promulgated through every department and eventually brought into the education system.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) says that this is not a real policy or mandate. But I took up the matter recently with the prospective parliamentary Labour candidate for Hornsey and Wood Green. I asked specifically whether this was her policy. She said that the council was entitled to do this because it had the mandate—the mandate based upon that document.
If my right hon. and hon. Friends are not prepared to protect parents, God help them.

Mr. Cormack: The House has heard a most eloquent and powerful speech. Nobody who has the care of and concern for the nation's children at heart could listen to that speech without feeling deeply disturbed.
We heard another excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris). The two speeches were close together in sentiment. Over a century ago the House decided that children were not the possessions of parents. It was decided that we should have compulsory education. So, we have to decide, in another age and in another time, what children should be taught.
I have changed my mind since I came into the Chamber. I speak, not just as a parent, but as a governor, as a former schoolmaster and as someone who believes in the Christian normality of family life. I believe that it is impractical, and probably wrong, to say that children either can or should be withdrawn from particular lessons. I reached that view as I listened to the debate. I think that the House of Commons is often at its best when hon. Members can debate and consider away from the constraints of the party doctrine, whatever it may be.
The overwhelming lesson for me from this debate was implicit in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East. The only way to deal with this matter properly and sensibly is for the Government not to abdicate their responsibilities but to grasp the opportunities and realise that, in effect, there must be an agreed syllabus. If there is any subject on the curriculum for which there should be an agreed syllabus, it is this. I quote, for once with approval, the words of Mr. Gradgrind"—

it is facts that must be taught.
The facts must be taught against the accepted background, and in this country the overwhelming majority of people believe that the normal family consistsof two parents, who are married, with children. That is the background against which the facts should be taught. If the parents believe otherwise, it is for them to teach what some of us might regard as dangerous deviations; it is not right to have those taught in schools. That point has not previously been made, but should be emphasised.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and the new Minister, whom we all welcome, grasp that. No one could for a moment doubt their commitment. I do not believe that the clause they have moved is especially damaging, but it does not grasp the central problem. We need an agreed syllabus; we need parents throughout the land to feel that their children can go to school and be taught the facts—many of them dangerous facts — without overtones, without insinuations, without moral or immoral indoctrination. If the parents then opt out of what the majority consider normality, it is for them to instruct at home. That is the way forward, and I hope that it is the way forward that the Government will take.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I wish to make one of my exceedingly brief speeches. The issue is simple. Conservative Members believe in the responsibility of parents. We believe that parents should have the right of choice. We believe that parents have a greater right to choose in issues that concern them personally, directly and more closely than any teacher, governor or local government authority.
How can we as Conservatives, believing in the supreme importance of parental responsibility, take away from parents the right to withdraw their children, if they so wish, from precisely the sort of teaching that is threatened in boroughs such as Haringey? Unless we support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), this legislation will go on the statute book depriving parents of the right to make that choice. No Conservative should be a party to such legislation.

Sir Ian Percival: I have listened to almost every word of the debate and formed a view that I wish to express briefly. I ask my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that view before the reply to the debate.
I accept that in our schools a large number of teachers are doing a wonderful job in what is a most difficult and sensitive subject. Only this morning I heard two boys being interviewed on the "Today" programme, and I would like to know the names of their teachers because I would like to write to congratulate them on the wonderful job that they have done. That is my first point.
Secondly, I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends are advancing the proposals that they have put before us because I believe that they are a step in the right direction.
But at the end of this lengthy debate I am left with one overriding view. It seems clear that everyone agrees that in some of our classrooms there is being said and done in the name of sex education things that would horrify us if we were parents of the children who are being subjected to it. I have listened for a simple answer to the problem, but there is no perfect answer. If I were one of those parents, I would take my children from those classes


whether or not I had a right to do so. Amendment 118, giving such a right, may be an imperfect solution, but in my book it is the only one that comes anywhere near a practical solution, and I support it.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that a great deal of research has shown that most parents are in favour of good sex education in schools. It is probably true to say that in the House there is probably a majority of parents who will feel relieved if good sex education has relieved them of the task of having to do in their own home what has not been properly explained at school.
When I listened to the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined the way in which she saw the problem, I was left with the idea that in some way the principles set out in the Education Act 1944 had been lost completely. As I understand the Act, there was a primary responsibility on the parent to decide on the education of his own child. Under that Act, education in a state school or some form of school is not even compulsory, but if full-time and proper education is to be brought about, and if a parent decides to make his child a registered pupil at a state school, he must ensure that there is regular attendance of the child at that school. That is my understanding of the attendance requirement, and withdrawal from classes is precisely the point at issue.
When my hon. Friend the Minister of State was talking about the right to withdraw and it being wrong to do so, she made it sound as if something new was about to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) spoke about the impracticality of separating sex education in schools, and I accept that that may be the position in Oxford, but by the same token I have had constituents attending my surgeries — fundamentalist Christians and members of the Plymouth Brethren —who tell me that for years they have been withdrawing their children from sex education in schools. They have been able to identify it and they have seen the headmasters of the schools to tell them that they do not believe that that is the right way for their children to be educated. As a Conservative, I believe that in the end it will be those parents who have to decide, rightly or wrongly, what they believe to be in their children's best interests.
We may think that such people are wrong, but I would not like to think, bearing in mind that I have a relatively liberal attitude on these matters, that a fundamentalist Christian has it right. I think that a more liberal approach is probably correct. But I cannot, even as a politician, even in a profession which is not over-endowed with humility and self doubt, assume the intellectual superiority to say to a member of the Plymouth Brethren, "On this issue I am right and you are wrong."
I should like to know—I put this to my hon. Friend in an intervention and perhaps I blinked or something of the sort when she replied—what is supposed to be changing. Are we really going to say that as a result of this measure parents will not be able to exercise their right to withdraw? I hope that I can see my hon. Friend nodding and saying, presumably, that parents will be able to withdraw their children. If that is the position, we have spent the past three hours debating something that did not need debating.

Mrs. Rumbold: There is not to be a statutory right, because there never has been the statutory right of

withdrawal. There has always been the right of the parent to go to the head teacher —in future, this will be the governing body—and say, "Because of our beliefs, we think that it would be reasonable to aks whether our child could be withdrawn." The position will be exactly the same except that the governing body will be involved instead of the head teacher.

Mr. Nicholls: With great respect to my hon. Friend—I am grateful to her for that reply—I do not see how the position would he quite the same, because in one case a parent might say to a headmaster, "I am withdrawing my child because I do not think that that is right"; whereas, as I understand the role of the governing body— this accords with everything that I have heard my hon. Friend say—the governing body will have a discretion about whether a parent should be allowed to withdraw his child. It is asking too much to think that all those governing bodies will be the repositories of wisdom. Those governing bodies will be made up of parents, among others. Which parent could possibly say to another parent, "I happen to think that you should not have the right to exercise your judgment in this case"?
What happens if a governing body is taken over by people who believe that the most gross sexual perversion should be taught as another form of normality? Are we to accept the possibility of a parent saying, "I am sorry, I have not been able to convince the governing body, but what I am going to say is that the primary responsibility for educating my child is mine and I shall withdraw my child from that identifiable sex education lesson."? I find it absolutely inconceivable that in such a case there would be some form of prosecution against a parent for having withdrawn his child, as if that would amount to irregular attendance.
It seemed to me that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir 1. Percival) put his finger on the issue. He said that if he found himself in that position he would not allow his child to attend. An Opposition Member, from a sedentary position, made the perhaps unwise comment, "So you would break the law, would you?". There is no law to be broken. It is simply a question of withdrawing one's child from one specified area of concern. That cannot amount to irregular attendance. In such a case there could be no question of breaking the law. The amendment is good cosmetic stuff and I can vote for it tonight with a clear conscience, but I do not think that the basic debate takes the matter forward one jot.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I shall speak briefly. I can speak only as a layman and as a parent, but I suspect that I am more in touch with the views of the majority of my constituents, who are overwhelmingly ordinary parents, than are all the world's so-called experts on this subject. In fact, it is the so-called experts who I am worried about, as I shall illustrate. My experience comes simply from the large number of letters that I have received from my constituents. Many people with real problems and concerns have visited me. My experience comes also from the sex education I received, on no fewer than three separate occasions, at different ages, when I was at school. My experience illustrates the sorts of problem that the subject poses to all schools and teachers—problems that I should not dismiss lightly.
I first encountered the topic at the age of eight when my classmates and I were so disinterested by the subject that


we were driven to boredom. At the age of 14, when I received my next dose of the subject, we giggled at the pictures and films. We found them highly amusing, but not especially educative. When, at the age of 17, we received our third instruction in the subject, we knew it all anyway and were only entertained by the embarrassment of the teacher who was trying to explain the facts to us.
Both the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), in a sensitive and understanding way, illustrated many of the difficulties that the subject poses to those teachers who try to teach the subject in the most positive and helpful way possible. The difficulty is that, in a sense, the whole debate can easily be turned into a nonsense by the exaggerated responses of people on both extremes of the argument. The extreme that worries me most concerns those who advocate the intensive teaching of sex education almost until it becomes a cause célèbre. I am perfectly happy about and do not quibble with the desirability of giving basic, simple sex education — I believe that one of my hon. Friends referred to it as "the facts"—as a necessary subject in school. What worries me is when the subject is extended, often considerably, to those areas of moral question that pose real difficulties for a large proportion of the population who are simply not prepared to accept the moral judgments of others. The subject may be considered to such an extent that all sorts of parents find themselves genuinely questioning the desirability of extending this form of tuition. Given that this is already happening and that much more is taught in many schools than many parents and I think necessary —indeed, these subjects are forced in a wholesale way on curricula—we must ensure that the House protects the rights of parents and children from the one-sided views of teachers or, even worse, in some cases those manipulators of the mind who want to bring about social change via the education system. There is no doubt that there are many such people around. Examples have been given in this debate.
I welcome the Government's amendments. I support in principle many of my hon. Friends' suggestions which have been designed to protect and, in so far as it is possible, to advance parents' rights. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is prepared to accept a number of these amendments in practice, if not in legislation.
I should like to illustrate with one example the reason why I am concerned about sex education. A Newcastle city councillor, Mrs. Eveline Hannaford, sent me a letter. I do not want to mislead the House—the letter referred to a conference that took place three years ago, in 1983. I have checked with teachers in the Newcastle area and have no reason to believe that the position has changed in the past three years. The letter revealed openly the political and propaganda motives of some of those who seek to teach and guide the teachers. Unfortunately, some teachers will be influenced by that teaching and will therefore change their attitudes and influence the pupils in their care. Unless there is strict parental control, freedom and rights, I fear that there will be an insiduous process by which those types of objectives creep further into our schools.
The conference took place at the university of Durham school of education and was subsidised by that school and the Schools Council. It referred to the need to ensure that certain subjects were taught with a particular slant and

designed to support and encourage one particular view on the role of women and relationships in society. Referring to the health and sex education session led by Hazel Slavin, Councillor Hannaford stated:
This was horrific and I apologise for the sordid details I am giving.
She referred first to abortion, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda has referred also. She stated:
I commented that I did not think that children should be told about the facilities for abortion as it would be against certain religions. The answer given was 'We must give them all the information and tell them their rights'.
Later, she stated:
We were then given various pictures of men and women copulating and again the emphasis was put why should the woman have to lie underneath the man. She should be shown lying on top of the man. A picture was shown as outlined above with explicit commentary by the 'lecturer' of the movements of the woman. She continued to inform us that there were, of course, various different methods, but she did not have the time to tell us about them. (All these pictures, I understand, were from text books for schools‡)
That was the line that the conference was told should be taught in schools. After referring to a number of similar examples, the councillor stated:
I felt horrified at what is being taught in schools and the two Labour Women Councillors from Newcastle (one of which had attended the same lecture in the morning) were also disgusted …
I feel very strongly that the Conservative Government pours in money so that all these extreme left wingers can spread their propaganda. This is particularly prominent in the Newcastle upon Tyne Labour controlled Council and there are some horrific examples.
Those are her fears. They are my fears too and those of many of my constituents. It is not a question of a backwoods reaction against all sex education; it is simply a desire to protect against abuse in a highly sensitive area. That protection requires vigilance by all involved, by teachers, governors and Ministers. The House should back that requirement.

1 am

Mr. Greenway: The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was not based upon theory—it would be so easy to base a speech on this important matter on theory—but upon his current experience of what a London borough is doing in schools and allied education institutions. I have discerned—I am not happy to say it—that the same sort of thing is happening in Ealing. I could not allow this debate to take place without making a contribution to it for that reason.
The fact is that the Ealing Labour party manifesto was virtually the same as that read out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and for that same reason the parents and children of Ealing are being dragged along the same wicked paths. Something has to be done. I do not need to go into great detail because hon. Members have heard it from my right hon. Friend. However, I have to look, as my right hon. Friend is looking, for a guarantee for parents that they can opt their children out of sex education which is based upon pressure to accept lesbianism and homosexuality as more valid than heterosexuality. Parents write to me, come to my surgery and stop me in the street. They are on the verge of social violence. There was social violence in Haringey last night. It is a serious matter.
Ealing has gone one or two steps further than Haringey. The chairman of the education committee is on record as


saying—it is in print and has never been denied—that equality of this kind is more important than maths and English, and he means it.
The council education committee is on the verge of appointing a teacher and paying him to be in charge of sexual equality in each school. That is an abuse of public funds at a time when more mathematicians and others are needed. Surely that is where any extra money should be going. The House has to take account of the way in which parents respond to what local education authorities are doing. 1 am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which he has responded. I want to be sure that what he is offering is a guarantee to parents in Ealing that they can opt their children out of sex education which is unacceptable. I am not certain that it is.
Think of the effect of sex education, which pressurises children to accept homosexuality and lesbianism as more valid than heterosexuality, upon Christians, Hindus, Moslems and so on. They are passionately opposed to and deeply upset by all that is going on. If the House does not take account of that it is not doing its duty and it is failing the nation and the children. We have no alternative but to presume that Christian teachers who cannot accept the policy of the education committee will not be appointed to schools because the Ealing Labour party manifesto states that only teachers who accept the council's policy will be appointed. If one has a policy, as Ealing council has, of appointing teachers regardless of sexual orientation how can the House be surprised at the parents' fears that their children will be put into the hands of perverts, practising homosexuals who are interested in children, lesbians and so on. Of course they are frightened, concerned and feeling violent because they will not allow that to happen to their children.
Notices are today being put up in high schools and youth clubs inviting pupils to apply to Gayline and Lesbianline for guidance. I do not believe, any more than parents believe, that those notices are innocently inviting children to seek guidance. If children need advice, they can approach doctors, clergymen and others who are well qualified to give it. Parents in my constituency believe that those notices entice children into a perverted form of life, and that is why they are beside themselves in opposition to them. This House must take deep account of the situation.
Some hon. Members have said that it would not be practical to allow parents to opt their children out of sex education because the subject touches the curriculum at so many points. Surely the same is true of religious education; it touches the curriculum at perhaps even more points. But it has been legal since 1944 for parents to opt their children out of religious education.
The very discipline on a school, on its head and its staff, of parents having the right to opt their children out of a subject results in those concerned with planning the curriculum taking infinitely more trouble to take account of the wishes of parents and the welfare of the children in arranging the curriculum. That is essential. Nothing less will do.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is interesting to reflect that for well over 100 years we had no legislation in Britain dealing with sex education in schools. Indeed, when the Bill was first introduced last autumn it did not contain any

proposals for legislation on sex education. Even as late as April last the Government were arguing strongly in the other place against having such provisions in the Bill.
The essential question for the House tonight is whet her any of the proposed amendments, or leaving unamended the clause that the Government inserted in Committee, would solve any of the problems about which hon. Members have been speaking. We must also consider whether the questions that have been posed tonight raise real or imaginary problems. Is it not a fact that this subject is proving a rich vein for self-publicists, for those who are anxious to put forward extremist views and for those who are anxious to grab headlines?
I seem to receive many complaints about what people allege is happening in other people's schools. I get few complaints from people about what is happening in their children's schools. Indeed, I have yet to come across one example of a parent who has told a head teacher that he or she is unhappy with the teaching of sex education in school, would like his or her child withdrawn from the lessons and who has been refused permission to withdraw the child. In other words, the present situation without legislation appears to working satisfactorily in the schools.
I suggest that in the majority of schools it works extremely well. Teachers realise that they have a responsibility to deal with the physiology of sex, that they have a duty to consult parents and that if the subject is to be taught well, parents should see the material—films, video or books—to be taught. That enables pupils who want to ask questions to have the choice of asking questions of their teachers after using the material or discussing it with their parents.
There was no fundamental problem in the schools until the Government decided to allow an amendment to be made in the other place to add words relating to moral considerations and the value of family life. From that point the Government have run into difficulties. As the circular stated, it is extremely difficult to define where sex education starts and finishes under that definition.
It does not matter whether we follow the proposals of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) that there should be an automatic right for parents to opt their children out of sex education or whether we pursue the course of obtaining the governors' permission it will be extremely difficult, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) suggested, to draw the line. A position will always arise in which a teacher will not be certain whether a pupil should be allowed or told to withdraw from an area of teaching. On occasions in schools, a teacher must adapt what is to be taught. We are all aware that there have been some horrific assaults on children recently. Warnings might have to be given to pupils in schools which one would not wish to introduce to young pupils. Parents and governors should not have to be consulted. If a situation arises, the teacher should be able to take action quickly.
There are many occasions when joyous events happen in households which contain small children. In a natural discussion in a primary school, the arrival of a baby brother or sister in one child's house may raise questions which it would be common sense for.the teacher to answer as they are asked. Other situations arise, especially i n those schools which keep pets, which create questions which demand answers. It would be extremely difficult to draw the line between sex education and general education if we accept the opt-out principle.
There is also the matter of behaviour in schools. Time after time situations arise in schools where a teacher must deal with the issues involved, for example, the circulation of pornography by pupils and the unsatisfactory behaviour of pupils. Will a teacher be able to reprimand two pupils and discuss the objections to the pornography being passed around if one pupil's parents have asked for that pupil to be withdrawn from sex education? If that is the case, the teacher would be unable to discuss those issues.
The Government and those who want to opt out must face the problem that it is extremely difficult to do so once the definition of sex education is extended from the simple physiology of sex to include the questions of moral considerations and the value of family life.
The Government must also make clear whether they expect the headteacher to retain the right to allow pupils to be withdrawn from sex education or whether that right is being taken from the head and given to the governors. That would be disastrous. I can think of many parents who may have had unfortunate experiences or who know that their children have had such experiences, who would feel that they could discuss such matters with a head teacher and gain the head teacher's confidence and so ask for their child to be withdrawn from sex education in the school. They would not want to discuss such matters with the governing body; they would not want to talk about these matters with more than one person.
The Government must face one final problem. There is no evidence that governing bodies will behave any differently from councils. No doubt there will be very good councils and governing bodies and on occasion there will be councillors who, in my view, behave irresponsibly. There will also be occasions when governors behave irresponsibly. It will not be satisfactory for decisions to be taken in these matters by majorities of seven to six if, as a result of public fuss, the decision is changed at the next governors' meeting. How on earth can there be continuity of policy in a school if decisions are taken in that way? There must be a consensus in schools whereby parents and teachers work together to put across the problems involved in having responsible sexual relationships. Unless that genuine co-operation across the community exists, schools will not be providing good education.
Sadly, all the proposals to legislate in this area fail to meet the basic requirement of improving on the present position. I hope that the House will reject the proposals to change the legislation and will retain the present system, which has worked satisfactorily for more than 100 years.

Mrs. Rumbold: We have had a long and extremely valuable debate on this subject. I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I understand that they feel very strongly about the sensitive issues that have been raised this evening. Several hon. Members have explained explicitly the reasons for their worry, and the Government must, therefore, accept the challenge laid upon them by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) and exercise considerable vigilance in dealing with this matter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) stressed the method by which sex education might be

administered by teachers throughout schools. They mentioned the final version of the circular on sex education which followed "Health Education from 5 to 16". I wish to re-emphasise to my hon. Friends that that will be the appropriate vehicle for discussion of the detailed contents of sex education provision, and we are, therefore, taking on board the views that they expressed to us.
I should also deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey (Sir H. Rossi) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I accept the strength —almost desperation—with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey expressed his views and his concern that the provision on sex education will not give parents the option that he believes his right. But I must dispute that with him on two counts. First, clause 26 places a clear duty on local education authorities, governors and heads to ensure that any sex education offered is set within a moral context and supportive of family life. Should parents have evidence that a school is failing to live up to those requirements, they should draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State immediately. The matter will be investigated fully, and should the school or the local education authority be found to have acted wholly unreasonably or in breach of the clause, he will be able to issue directions under existing powers, requiring that their sex education provision be brought into line with the Bill's requirements immediately.
On the anxiety about the exercise of parents' rights through the newly structured governing bodies, I am a little sad that there is so little faith among hon. Members for these new and improved governing bodies. Of course, elections for parent governors will have to include the opportunity for a postal ballot, which of course would be a secret ballot. Any interference in the democratic process by the local education authority would be liable to corrective direction from the Secretary of State. I hope that this will give those bodies some protection.
I should also point out that, recently, there have been examples where parental dissatisfaction has explicitly resulted in action. In one place, the head has been moved from the school and, in another, a suspended head teacher has been reinstated solely through the efforts of parents who feel strongly about it. I have made it clear why the Government do not believe that a statutory right of withdrawal would be an appropriate or effective way of using parent power in relation to sex education provision. When the parents feel strongly about the content and teaching approaches to be used, and they feel sufficiently strongly that they would be prepared to consider withdrawing their children from any teaching to which they objected, I am confident that they will be prepared to channel those efforts positively to improve sex education provision through the arrangements which we propose.
I am sure that parents will attend the annual parents meetings and that they will ensure that their concerns are expressed and debated. I am convinced that they will be able to pass resolutions which the governors will be required to consider, and I cannot believe that any governing body, faced with strong parental pressures, would fail to amend their policies on sex education or would fail to respond positively.
The House has had a long and earnest discussion about these matters. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the


Member of Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for her clear and sensible speech and to many other Members who have spoken.
I should like to clear up one point before we have a Division. Many Members have asked how amendment No. 233 will allow parents to negotiate the withdrawal of their children from sex education. The key is that the amendment gives governors clear responsibility for the content and organisation of sex education. The organisation of any aspect of the curriculum includes the day-to-day running of the teaching programme—that is, what pupils do what at any given time and who participate in which lessons — so the governors will be able to decide in response to parental requests that a child should do something other than a sex education lesson. Legally, of course, that is no different from deciding to allow some pupils to study, say, history while others study geography. The key is that the school remains in overall control of each child's programme.
I sense that it is time to reach a decision. I ask the House to support the Government amendments and to reject all others.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 138.

Division No. 285]
[1.25 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alexander. Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Alton, David
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Churchill, W. S.


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Critchley, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Crouch, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dicks, Terry


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, William
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Best, Keith
Dover, Den


Bevan. David Gilroy
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Robert


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Durant, Tony


Blackburn, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P broke)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eggar, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, Sir John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Favell, Anthony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brinton, Tim
Forth, Eric


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Franks, Cecil


Browne, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Fry, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Galley, Roy


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry





Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mather, Carol


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Harris, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Harvey, Robert
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hayes, J.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard


Hickmet, Richard
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Norris, Steven


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Osborn, Sir John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Irving, Charles
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Powell. William (Corby)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powley. John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, Sir David


Key, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raffan. Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, David
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Lang, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawrence, Ivan
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin






Stanbrook, Ivor
Trotter, Neville


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Stern, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waddington, David


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Walden, George


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watson, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thorne, Neil (llford S)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Trippier, David
Mr. Francis Maude.


NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashdown, Paddy
Godman, Dr Norman


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Barnett, Guy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barron, Kevin
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Heffer, Eric S.


Bell, Stuart
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Home Robertson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Howells, Geraint


Blair, Anthony
Hoyle, Douglas


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bruce, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Leighton, Ronald


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Robert
Loyden, Edward


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Martin, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Meadowcroft, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eadie, Alex
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Faulds, Andrew
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Patchett, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Radice, Giles


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Randall, Stuart


Freud, Clement
Raynsford, Nick


George, Bruce
Redmond, Martin





Richardson, Ms Jo
Spearing, Nigel


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Robertson, George
Stott, Roger


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Strang, Gavin


Rogers, Allan
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Rooker, J. W.
Tinn, James


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Welsh, Michael


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Allen Adams and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 233, in page 21, line 9, at end insert—
(1A) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body—

(a) to consider separately (while having regard to the local education authority's statement under section 17 of this Act) the question whether sex education should form part of the secular curriculum for the school; and
(b) to make, and keep up to date, a separate written statement—

(i) of their policy with regard to the content and organisation of the relevant part of the curriculum; or
(ii) where they conclude that sex education should not form part of the secular curriculum, of that conclusion.'.

No. 234, in page 21, line 12, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1) and (1A)'.
No. 235, in page 21, line 23, leave out 'such statement' and insert 'statement under subsection (1) above'.
No. 236, in page 21, line 25, leave out 'such statement' and insert 'statement under this section'.
No. 69, in page 21, line 25, at end insert—
'(2A) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the head teacher to make any statement furnished to him under this section available at all reasonable times, to persons wishing to inspect it.'.
No. 237, in page 21, line 35, leave out 'that' and insert 'those'.
No. 238, in page 22, line 2, after '(i)', insert—
so far as it relates to sex education, is compatible with the governing body's policy (as expressed in their statement under subsection (1A) above) except where that policy is incompatible with any part of the syllabus for a course which forms part of that curriculum and leads to a public examination;
(ii) so far as it relates to other matters,'
No. 239, in page 22, line 6, after 'statement', insert 'under subsection (1) above'.
No. 240, in page 22, line 12, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1) and (1A) — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 19

AIDED AND SPECIAL AGREEMENT SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 23, line 8, at end insert—
'(2) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body, when considering the content of the secular curriculum for the school, to have regard—



(a) to any representations which are made to them, with regard to that curriculum by any persons connected with the community served by the school; and
(b) to any such representations which—

(i) are made to them by the chief officer of police; and
(ii) are connected with his responsibilities.'.

No. 72, in page 23, line 8, at end insert—
'(3) Where the governing body of any such school make any statement in writing of their policy as to the secular curriculum for the school they shall furnish a copy of it to the head teacher; and the head teacher shall make it available, at all reasonable times, to persons wishing to inspect it'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 22

DISCIPLINE

Motion,
That Clause 22 be divided into four Clauses, the first consisting of page 23, line 38 to page 24, line 35, the second of page 24, line 36 to page 25, line 20, the third of page 25, line 21 to page 26, line 44 and the fourth of page 27, line 1 to page 28, line 41.[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

put and agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 23, line 38 leave out
`Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) below'.
No. 76, in page 24, line 36, at beginning insert—
`( ) The articles of government for every county, voluntary, and maintained special school shall provide—'.

No. 77, in page 24, line 40, leave out 'and'.

No. 79, in page 24, line 46, at end insert 'and'.

No. 81, in page 25, line 4, leave out second 'he' and insert
'the pupil or (as the case may be) parent'.

No. 87, in page 26, line 4, leave out from 'permanent' to end of line 8.

No. 90, in page 26, line 37, after 'above' insert—
`(ff) for it to be the duty of the head teacher, where conflicting directions for the reinstatement of a pupil are given by the governing body and the local education authority, to comply with that direction which will lead to the earlier reinstatement of the pupil;'

No. 91, in page 26, line 43, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'section'.

No. 92, in page 27, line 26, after 'by', insert 'the governing body or'.

No. 93, in page 27, line 27, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 30.

No. 95, in page 27, line 34, leave out paragraph (d).

No. 97, in page 28, line 16, leave out (a) or '.

No. 98, in page 28, line 16, at end insert—
`(gg) for it to be the duty of the head teacher, where conflicting directions for the reinstatement of a pupil are given by the governing body and the local education authority, to comply with that direction which will lead to the earlier reinstatement of the pupil; and '.

No. 241, in page 28, line 22, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'section'.

No. 99, in page 28, line 23, leave out from 'them' to end of line 41.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 23

EXCLUSION ON DISCIPLINE GROUNDS: APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 29, line 2, leave out
`to exclude the pupil permanently'
and insert
'not to reinstate the pupil following his permanent exclusion'.

No. 106, in page 29, line 10, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.

No. 107, in page 29, line 12, leave out
'to exclude the pupil permanently'
and insert
'not to reinstate the pupil following his permanent exclusion'.

—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 24

EXCLUSION: ADDITIONAL PROVISION FOR APPEALS

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 29, line 31, after '23', insert 'of this Ace.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 25

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY'S RESERVE POWER

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 29, line 42, at end insert—
'(1A) The governing body and the head teacher of every aided and special agreement school shall, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) below, consider any representations made to them by the local education authority.'.
Amendment proposed: No. 114, in page 30, line 16, leave out clause 26.—[Mr. Freud.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 302.

Division No. 286]
[1.35 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Forrester, John


Barnett, Guy
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bell, Stuart
Freud, Clement


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Godman, Dr Norman


Blair, Anthony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Home Robertson, John


Bruce, Malcolm
Howells, Geraint


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Janner, Hon Greville


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Crowther, Stan
Leighton, Ronald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Edward


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Michie, William


Ewing, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbr.de)


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, David






Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


O'Brien, William
Skinner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, C.(Isi'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin


Radice, Giles
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Raynsford, Nick
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wareing, Robert


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Welsh, Michael


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mrs Elizabeth Shields.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James


Alton, David
Critchley, Julian


Amess, David
Crouch, David


Ancram, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dunn, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Benyon, William
Fallon, Michael


Best, Keith
Farr, Sir John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Favell, Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Galley, Roy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hannam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harvey, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Chope, Christopher
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'tolk SW)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Cockeram, Eric
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David





Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Hickmet, Richard
Needham, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Newton, Tony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Norris, Steven


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Osborn, Sir John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Ottaway, Richard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Irving, Charles
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, Sir David


Key, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raffan, Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, David
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Lang, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawrence, Ivan
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)






Thornton, Malcolm
Watts, John


Thurnharn, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitney, Raymond


Trippier, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Waddington, David
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waller, Gary



Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Noes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Watson, John
Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 118, in page 30, line 22 at end insert—
'(2) It shall he the right of any parent to withdraw his child from any sex education to which that parent objects:.— [Mr. Bruinvels.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 301.

Division No. 287]
[1.50 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Malins, Humfrey


Ashby, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Benyon, William
Proctor, K. Harvey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Blackburn, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)


Bruinvels, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cash, William
Sims, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dicks, Terry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Sir Marcus
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Greenway, Harry
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Thornton, Malcolm


Ground, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hannam, John
Wilkinson, John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)



Hawksley. Warren
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mr. Den Dover and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. David Amess.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, A. Brighton K'to'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ancram, Michael
Boyes, Roland


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashdown, Paddy
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Browne, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bruce, Malcolm


Baldry, Tony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Budgen, Nick


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bulmer, Esmond


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Best, Keith
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (Wton S)


Boscawen Hon Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Channon, Rt Hon Paul





Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones. Robert (Herts W)


Cockeram, Eric
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cope, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cormack, Patrick
Knowles, Michael


Couchman, James
Knox, David


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Crouch, David
Lang, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Latham, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawler, Geoffrey


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Leighton, Ronald


Dubs, Alfred
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamfd)


Dunn, Robert
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


E&amp;stham, Ken
Lightbown, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lord, Michael


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Lyell, Nicholas


Evennett, David
McCrindle, Robert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fallon, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Farr, Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil


Fatchett, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Favell, Anthony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Fisher, Mark
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David John


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Foster, Derek
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Franks, Cecil
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Madel, David


Freud, Clement
Major, John


Galley, Roy
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mates. Michael


Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Gregory, Conal
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Meacher, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Harris, David
Mellor, David


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Merchant, Piers


Harvey, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Michie, William


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayes, J.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayward, Robert
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moate, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Monro, Sir Hector


Hickmet, Richard
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Neale, Gerrard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Needham, Richard


Holt, Richard
Nellist, David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Howard, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Newton, Tony


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Norris, Steven


Howells, Geraint
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Osborn, Sir John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ottaway, Richard






Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Spencer, Derek


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Patchett, Terry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Squire, Robin


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Pawsey, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pendry, Tom
Stern, Michael


Pike, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Pollock, Alexander
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Portillo, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Stott, Roger


Powley, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Price, Sir David
Strang, Gavin


Radice, Giles
Sumberg, David


Raffan, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raynsford, Nick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Redmond, Martin
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Trippier, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waddington, David


Ryder, Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Scott, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sedgemore, Brian
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Raymond


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Silvester, Fred
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Snape, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Tony Durant and


Speed, Keith
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Speller, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 27

FINANCE

Motion,
That Clause 26 be transferred to end of line 19 on page 47. —[Mr.Kenneth Baker]—

put and agreed to.

Clause 28

GOVERNORS' ANNUAL REPORT TO PARENTS

Amendment made: No. 129, in page 33, line 3, after 'school', insert
'and all persons employed at the school'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Clause 29

ANNUAL PARENTS' MEETING

Amendment made: No. 133, in page 33, line 29, leave out 'subject to subsection (7) below'.

Manuscript amendment made, in page 34, line 29, after "which" insert "who are boarders".—[Mrs Rumbold.]

Clause 38

APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF CLERK TO GOVERNING BODY

Amendment made: No. 243, in page 43, line 12, leave out first 'for' and insert `of.—[Mrs. Rumbold.]

Clause 40

SCHOOL PREMISES

Amendment made: No. 141, in page 45, line 3, at end insert:
'and in so doing to have regard to the desirability of the premises being made available (when not required by or in connection with the school) for use by members of the community served by the school.'.— [Mrs Rumbold.]

2 am

Clause 41

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN UNIVERSITIES, POLYTECHNICS AND COLLEGES

Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 46, line 38, at end insert—
'(9) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted about the proposals the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the National Union of Students and such other bodies as he considers appropriate.'.
The original clause, to be inserted into the Bill whilst in the Lords, was published only a few days ago. On that procedural point, many of their Lordships took exception and the clause was withdrawn. Neither that clause nor the one under consideration today have been subject to , anything approaching adequate consultation. The CVCP saw the clause only in the Minister's office. Whilst we are clearly not saying that it should have seen it before the House saw it, we are saying that it should have been consulted about the whole idea of legislating. The amendment seeks to apply the principle accepted by the Government on teacher appraisal — to consult the relevant education partners before implementation—to the question of freedom of speech.
The problem with clause 41 is that freedom of speech cannot be an absolute right. It must be subject to certain limitations, of which two have particular relevance to the clause—freedom of speech within the law, and freedom of speech within the integrity of the institution. I am not satisfied that the clause proposed by the Government properly accepts those limitations.
On the first—freedom of speech within the law—it is still not clear what the relationship will be between this clause and existing laws on, for example, race relations and public order. I ask the Minister to confirm, when he replies, that an institution that acts to uphold the right of a speaker to speak, who then breaks some other law, cannot be taken to court for aiding and abetting that breach.
On the second — freedom of speech within the integrity of the institution—I would like the Minister to say whether the clause permits the institution to decline or to cancel an invitation if either the speaker or the possible consequences of the speech will damage that integrity.
In Committee, the Minister of State explained that the institution could withdraw an invitation if it thought that


a breach of the peace was possible. It is important to have that confirmed today and for the Government to explain whether protecting integrity would also count as a reason under this clause for withdrawing such an invitation. As Lord Beloff wrote in The Times recently:
What matters is the good of the institution as a whole, not some abstract notion of free speech which may or may not be relevant to a particular case.
In addition to the two limitations which we are not satisfied are met by the clause, the proposed legislation must be shown to be necessary and workable. I do not believe that the Government have done that. The 12 cases listed in a written answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science — the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden)—on 25 June 1986 are given as reasons for having the clause. Some are clearly dealt with under existing laws, for instance, those relating to assaults— Sunderland polytechnic and Bradford university. Others are dealt with under the institutions' own disciplinary proceedings—Manchester university. Many of the others would not fall foul of the clause anyway, because they do not relate to people preventing speakers from attending. There is confusion over what seems to amount to deliberate provocation by some speakers. Those are the cases on which the edifice of the clause has been constructed — 12 cases in which more than one interpretation is possible out of the thousands of meetings which take place every term in all institutes of higher education.
The clause will outlaw no-platform policies, where they go beyond the aspect of speaking within the law. I do not support no-platform policies. The Union of Liberal Students has led the fight in many cases to abolish those policies. This argument should be fought at institutional level and won.
I remind the Minister that recently the Oxford Students' Union voted to abandon the no-platform policy. That decision was rightly taken by the students, not by some clause in this legislation. York university has put some pressure on students to abolish the no-platform policy. We contend that this is not a case for legislation, especially as those with a legitimate concern have not been consulted. The case for legislation has not been proven and the legislation looks decidedly faulty.
I shall not take to the vote my traditional amendment to delete the whole clause, but this is an important debate, infinitely more so than the previous debate which was much more heavily attended. I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. David Crouch: I know that the hour is late, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) that this subject is of great importance. It concerns freedom of speech in perhaps the most important place where it should obtain, not excluding the House — our universities and institutions of higher education. I shall not detain the House long, but it is not my fault or that of Back Benchers that we are here at such an unseemly hour to debate freedom of speech. I welcome the clause. I differ from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, who spoke for the Liberal party.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals wrote last December and earlier to Members of Parliament.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And again today.

Mr. Crouch: Yes, but I am talking about its December letter when it referred to its special cause for concern. Having seen the proposed legislation in clause 41, the Committee seems to have backed off. It appears to be worried about the legal difficulties that might arise from the drafting of the clause. It speaks of ambiguities and definitions. It wonders what is meant in the clause by a "visiting speaker" and "premises". I can understand that the Committee looks at this matter rather donnishly, academically and legalistically, as advised by its legal advisers. Of course the Committee is right to be concerned about the drafting of the clause but it should not be frightened off by the proposed legislation.
I refer the House to what the committee wrote on 13 December 1985:
The present state of the law, defining rights of speech and of assembly and the limits thereon, and of the law governing meetings and demonstrations, and their regulation and control, abounds with uncertainties. If the position is affected by new legislation, as now seems likely, the Vice-Chancellors' Committee will advise universities further.
It went on to describe the nature and purpose of the advice and said:
With the decline elsewhere of the open political meeting, universities and other institutions of higher education find themselves bearing special responsibility for the preservation of freedom of speech and lawful assembly. In the discharge of this responsibility they arc in line as a target for small groups of extremists, not always students, who wish to create conflict through provocation.
Further, in December 1985 the committee reminded us:
nothing excuses disruptive or intimidatory behaviour but students must be able to protest and to heckle at meetings as long as lawful freedom of speech and of assembly are not infringed.
I am sure that the House would agree with that, and as the Secretary of State faces this problem, he must ask the House to approve sensible legislation to deal with the tricky area of freedom of speech.
The notes from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors arid Principals also drew our attention to what it described as "General Principles" which should govern the thought arid the proposed legislation. For example:
A speaker who incites an audience to violence or to breach of the peace or to racial hatred, for example, transgresses the bounds of lawful speech. Assemblies of persons, whether or not directed to lawful purposes, cease to be lawful if they cause serious public disorder or breaches of the peace.
All of that was sensible advice for universities, vice-chancellors, university senates and councils. I speak as one who is a member of a council of the University of Kent at Canterbury. I have been taking part in a sub-committee set up by that university to consider the question of the freedom of speech in our universities. The small subcommittee consists of the treasurer of the university, a lawyer, myself and a former Deputy Speaker of the House, the noble Lord Irving, who was the former Member for Dartford. We considered the problem, as we were required to do, before there was legislation in the proposed Bill. It could have been left to all our higher educational institutions to devise and produce their own rules and regulations within the university or other centre of education where such rules would have to apply. That is what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was aiming at at that time. I do not think that it is wrong that, in the event, we should have legislation to further strengthen and preserve the right to freedom of speech because that is what it is really about.
I have studied this question closely in the university of Kent following the advice of the Commitee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I have studied it not only with members of the academic staff, lay members of the council and others concerned with the university but with members of the students union. It has been an extensive consultation. An anomaly has already shown itself in Kent which I should like to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have come across it in the past few days. At Kent, the members of the Federation of Conservative Students have, for certain reasons, decided to disaffiliate from the students union. They have had a dispute with the union and disagree with it, making contributions towards political ends. They are denied funds as a result, the result being that when they seek to hold meetings and invite a speaker who might be considered contentious in some way —I put it no higher than that—and they consult, as they must, the person responsible for maintaining order in that part of the university it is a collegiate university, so they consult the master of the college — they find that in certain circumstances the master requires the presence of extra stewards to safeguard the lawful procedures of such a meeting.
No attempt is made to keep out a person who is considered to be contentious. Extra stewards have to be engaged. Those additional stewards must be paid for, and the Conservative students about whom I am speaking find that they must engage eight or 10 additional stewards at, say, £10 a head. That means that political society having to find £80 or £100 to set up a meeting. No other funds are available to them, so they must come from their own resources. If they were not disaffiliated from the union, it would come from the students union.
I shall take up this matter with the vice-chancellor and the university this week. In the meantime I want the House to be advised of the anomaly. It could be a barrier to a contentious person speaking to a political group in a university, the members of which might say that because they cannot afford the additional expenditure, they will not invite him. In the case I have mentioned, if they were affiliated to the union the problem would not arise.
The rules that have already been drawn up at Kent, on the recommendation of the CVCP, are precise and I believe that they could have served to preserve this freedom of speech, and good order for the performance of that freedom of speech, without clause 41. But I am not against the clause. It puts into law what the CVCP put in a letter. Perhaps it is as well to have the provision, as it will act as belt and braces, so important a subject is it.
The law can, of course, always be misunderstood and the words to which the CVCP has drawn attention—about the premises and the speaker, who could be a lecturer, perhaps lecturing on scientific subjects—could be misunderstood. But I am sure that those words could be interpreted by the university authorities in each university and place where meetings are held and that even without the clause the matter could be handled in the way I have described. Universities will, in any case, have to examine their ordinances and the rules they establish by which, for example, students unions operate. Those rules may have to be changed, as is happening in Kent.
The Minister will find that most universities have taken that advice of a year ago and have acted on it.

Nevertheless, I see no reason why we should not also have clause 41 as the belt to the braces already provided by many universities.

Mr. Stern: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) suggested that the clause was not necessary. I shall draw on events in the city of Bristol to show why it is both necessary and wholly desirable.
The history of contentious meetings in Bristol in the last year or so has been the history of the growing need for the clause. It started with a violent meeting at which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) attempted to speak but was unsuccessful.
The need for the clause continued with the threatened and actual violence to Professor John Vincent at the university. It continued with what was intended as a peaceful meeting addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and myself at which the majority of the audience was admitted in an attempt to howl us down. Only last week many of us saw on television the effect of a small handful of anarchists in the students union. I am happy to accept that most of these anarchists came from outside the university. They succeeded in preventing a speech by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and they caused considerable violence and damage in their attempt to do that.
I referred to the activities of the students union. In justification for the clause being debated, I would cite the remarkable change in the attitude of the students union which has occured over a matter of months. Only within the past two months did the union produce a pamphlet called the "The Coming Troubles …" That pamphlet has a large picture of the right hon. Member for South Down on its cover. It contains phrases which state that meetings were organised which were determined to create violence. The final paragraph of the pamphlet refers to the Federation of Conservative Students using its provocative meetings as a basis for concerted disruption, as if there was a casual relationship between the expression of controversial views and the violence, which, according to the pamphlet, must inevitably follow.
That pamphlet appeared two months ago. As a result of some of the meetings which I have listed—I am not sure that he will appreciate praise from me but nevertheless he is going to get it—and as a result of the courage of the president of the students union, Mr. David Gottlieb, in pushing against a policy of no platform in the university and for pushing the need for Bristol to lead the way and show that it can conduct a meeting with free speech, the students union stepped up its security precautions and attempted to organise a meeting where there was a peaceful demonstration against the right hon. Member for South Down but at which he could be heard. Unfortunately, because of outside influences, they were unsuccessful. At an extraordinary general meeting of the union last night, the president went considerably further and not only persuaded the union to heighten security at future meetings but also spoke strongly in favour of calling in outside help for such security when needed. That is an admirable attitude on the union's part and it is an attitude which I am sure we would all wish to praise.
Fortunately, that attitude becomes even more admirable when it is constrasted with that of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and—Principals,


Throughout the dispute and the gestation of the clause that we are discussing, the CVCP's attitude has been—to use its own words—to "advise and guide". Not once has the committee taken a positive stand and stated that it was not just interested in giving advice but was committed to freedom of speech and that it would do something in the universities to encourage that freedom.
The clause is necessary to get the CVCP to commit itself to something which most of us regard as important in our civilisation, instead of simply sitting on the sidelines saying that it deplores what is happening but unfortunately it cannot do anything about it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I wish to support the new clause as a Member of the House who has addressed Conservative and other audiences in almost every university in the United Kingdom. Most of the audiences that I have addressed have been prepared to give me free speech. Others have not, although I have not suffered from the grievous violence that has been suffered by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) mentioned the university of Kent. Some years ago I was invited to speak there by the Conservative association and was prevented from speaking because hostile groups had occupied the lecture hall which had been properly reserved by the Conservative association. I was denied free speech within the university. Nothing was done by the university authorities. I am an Essex Member of Parliament and a member of the court of the university of Essex. I have stood up to vociferous audiences there, and I make no complaint about that. I welcome heckling when I speak. I have also been pelted in the university of Essex, and I could not obtain from the university even the cost of drycleaning my suit.
The reason for this new clause is not that university authorities do not believe in free speech; of course, they do. We need such a new clause because they have shown themselves impotent to make available free speech to visiting speakers, properly invited by students, and because of that inertness and impotence we need the new clause. I wish that it were not required. Therefore, I disagree with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and warmly support the new clause.

Mr. Winnick: I have doubts and reservations regarding the clause proposed in another place. I am certainly in favour of free speech. I exercise it myself and I see no reason to deprive other people of the same right. That right should apply at universities as it should anywhere else.
Some years ago, I was asked to chair a meeting of the student body at the London School of Economics to which a controversial academic and writer had been invited by the student body. Few voted against inviting him, but when he came along one or two people—in the main from outside the LSE— were determined to disrupt the meeting and succeeded in so doing. The following Sunday, those who disrupted the meeting and received a good deal of publicity at the time, in the early 1970s, were described in one newspaper as being CIA Maoists. Whether that was true or not, I was not to know, but the important point was that the students had invited the person, despite his

being controversial, and the fact that the meeting could not take place meant that that person received more sympathy than he would otherwise have done. That illustrates to me how stupid it was to try to stop him from speaking. At the end of the day, the person who came out best was the academic, whose glasses were broken and who undoubtedly received a good deal of sympathy, including some from me, although I remain strongly opposed to his views.
Are the Government saying that students should not be in a position to say, in some circumstances, that they are so much opposed to a viewpoint that they do not want a speaker invited to attend the college concerned? Say, for example, a National Front speaker is invited. Can we argue that it is unreasonable to have strong objections? The new clause goes on to talk about the freedom of speech within the law. The National Front and other such organisations could argue that they are within the law, and undoubtedly they are legal organisations. That is not in dispute. I can well understand, however, that many students and possibly the majority at any given college would want to protest and to make it clear that they did not believe that a platform should be provided for that person. I do not consider that unreasonable. I consider it unreasonable, however, to go wider than that, as has happened in some cases, although I agree that it is difficult to draw the line between those who should be invited and those who should not. Therefore, in the main, I do not support a no-platform policy because I appreciate the difficulties involved.
2.30 am
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) referred to the difficulty and disruption that occurred at Bristol. He was fair enough to concede that in the main the disrupters came from outside. They prided themselves on being anarchists, they wanted the maximum publicity, and they received it. For the life of me I cannot see how that kind of disruption, which I deplore, could have been avoided by clause 41. People who are determined to gain that type of publicity, for what it is worth, will carry out their disruption regardless to gain that publicity and no amount of provisions of the type now before us will prevent them.
Another reason why I do not greatly favour the no-platform policy is that one or two people — not necessarily the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), but one or two Conservative Members — have received a good deal of unwarranted prominence and publicity as a result.

Mr. John Carlisle: Name them

Mr. Winnick: I could name the hon. Gentleman himself. I believe that in some cases student bodies have played into his hands, because on occasions when his remarks would otherwise have attracted little or no publicity he has received far more publicity than he deserved. That is another reason why I believe some of the policies that have been pursued to be wrongheaded.
I believe that this is a matter for the good sense of student bodies and college authorities and not one that the House should decide. It is interesting to note that there was no such clause in the original Bill. The Government accepted an amendment in response to concern in another place. I believe that that was wrong and that far more good sense prevailed previously. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject clause 41.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I believe that there is a need for clause 41 or something like it. In some universities there has been disgraceful and appalling interference with freedom of speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and others have pointed out.
A particular difficulty arises, however, because there are some church colleges of education and university colleges specifically set up to promote religion. Some are Church of England and some are Roman Catholic. A famous one is St. Mary's college, Strawberry Hill, in my constituency. The trust deeds of the college and the contracts of the academic staff both imply a duty to promote a particular religious faith. What will happen under this legislation if some maverick student invites someone to speak, say, in favour of atheism or some other doctrine which is in conflict with the basic tenets of the religion that the college was founded to promote and uphold? Are the college authorities expected to facilitate that?
Clause 41(1) provides:
Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers
Subsection (2) further provides that
the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons
for that purpose. Does that impose a duty on the college to allow a person invited by a maverick student to preach atheism in the college chapel? What would the legal position be as there is surely a legal duty on the college authorities to comply with the trustees, yet the Bill says that the college authorities must take such steps as are necessary to provide freedom of speech anywhere on the campus?
Yesterday I telephoned my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to suggest that there should be a Government amendment to cover that point. I have not seen it yet and I fear that there will be law suits relating to those conflicts of duties which will lead to an early need for amending legislation unless something is done.

Mr. John Carlisle: I think that the House will share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) on the necessity for this clause and I think that the House will join with me in regretting that it was necessary. But the facts which have been presented tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and others, and which, indeed, were apparent in the bitter experience of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) last Friday, and many others in the House and outside before, make it a necessity that the clause is approved by the House tonight.
Be it that I shall be the first to admit that the clause is not perfect. Be it that I shall also admit that the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) were correct in that those extremists who are intent on wrecking meetings, some of whom come from outside the universities, will not be put off by the clause. But the House has a duty to the universities and the taxpaying public to ensure that, of all places, places of academic learning are places where freedom of speech is practised.
When the hon. Member for Walsall, North speaks of the publicity that surrounds the types of meeting that took place last week, and, indeed, the types of meeting that I have attended or at which I have attempted to speak, and says that I and others have gained publicity because of that misfortune, let me say to him that if he were to come with me and suffer the sort of indignity and humiliation that I and others have been through, suffer the bullying tactics of the extreme Left, see those who come to hear me and others speak spat upon, beaten, and physically attacked, perhaps he would not so glibly say that some of these meetings now take place for the publicity of the speaker concerned.
The experiences that I suffered at Bradford and that many of my hon. Friends have suffered in the past few months were extremely uncomfortable and I would not wish them upon my best friends on the Conservative Benches and particularly on the hon. Member for Walsall, North.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: These things happen to visiting Members of Parliament. They also happen to people who are teachers in the universities. Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that my constituent, Pamela Symes, a lecturer at the North-East London polytechnic, was beaten up and severely injured, yet the authorities did nothing? What is happening at Ruskin and what has happened to John Vincent is not to visitors but to people whose reputations and careers are being physically destroyed.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should also add that several others from other places of academic learning such as schools—for example, Ray Honeyford and others — have suffered similar indignities and physical intimidation in the way that my hon. Friend so aptly describes.
The clause is a message from the House to three different sets of people at universities. First, it is a message to the vice-chancellors that they must put their own house in order. It just will not do for them to send copies of various edicts to this place, to mouth words that they believe in freedom of speech and not actually back that up by actions in terms of disciplining the students and by attending some of the meetings and understanding the conditions under which some visiting speakers and lecturers have to attend. It is a strong message to them to firm up their own organisations and to become far more personally involved.
The second group of people to whom it is a message is the students and the students union. The House and the British taxpayer will not tolerate no-platform policies. It should not be a part of any university and the message goes from this House that the clause outlaws that policy.
Thirdly, the message is for those extremists—aptly described by others and experienced by myself—who are intent on putting their views across and preventing others from putting forward views with which they disagree. The message is that we will not tolerate violence on our campuses. Although this clause is inadequate and may not prevent the sort of violence which has occurred, if we pass it we will give a message to the country and to the universities that we will not tolerate this behaviour. We will give every protection we can to the people who, when speaking, keep within the law. That is what the country


and the universities wish to hear. I welcome the clause and I hope that it will proceed with the full approval of the House.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: At the great university of Bristol we have seen the denial of freedom in action and have seen the corrosive effects of bigotry as it eats away at the foundation of scholarship.
Without the right to disagree there is no debate, without debate there is no scholarship and the result is bigotry, dogma, slogans and learning by rote. My approach has been to ask how this clause will buttress the great good of free speech? How does it repair the erosion caused by those who would deny others the rights that they enjoy? How will the clause stiffen the backbone of the sometimes weak governing bodies of universities, polytechnics or colleges?
Clause 41 is a well-meaning but defective first step. It does not differentiate between those who belong to the academic establishments and those who do not. Although it imposes a duty to protect freedom of speech, it ignores the lack of resources and the means to ensure that protection.
I trust that no one would disagree that any member of an educational establishment, duly appointed, has the absolute right under the law to discharge his duties in that establishment. However, in Bristol there has been a virulent campaign of hate and violence waged against Professor John Vincent. He is a decent, honourable, able and kind man. Such a campaign demonstrates how necessary it is to provide academic freedom with a shield of statutory protection. I regret to inform the House that the result of the disciplinary hearings has been to let the perpetrators off and to send John Vincent away on a years's sabbatical.
I would not share a platform with the National Front or Sinn Fein, but, providing that they act and speak within the law, they have a right to be heard, however vile their views. Whether they should have the automatic legal right to speak wherever they like on private property is another matter.
This clause should have permitted governing bodies greater powers to determine who should have the right to speak on premises that they control. If a governing body should deny a guest a platform or the premises are inadequate, those members of the academic establishment who invited the guest in the first place should have recourse to the courts. Once a guest has been invited and authorised by the governing body, that body has a duty, using the police if necessary, to en' tire that the guest gets a fair hearing. As self-restraining freedom has, at times, been absent from the very places of learning where it should be cherished, legislation is obviously necessary. This clause is a first step and it therefore deserves support. In view of its inadequacies, however, I fear that it will not be the last step.

Mr. Tony Baldry: In 1969, I went to Sussex university. I did not intend to get involved in politics. I rather hoped to spend most of my time playing rugger, but I found to my horror that many of my views were being attacked by the extreme Left, so I became involved.
Shortly after arriving at the university, in early 1970, the university Conservative association invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr.

Amery) to come to speak to us. He was and remains the Member of Parliament for and a member of the court of the university. For reasons best known to itself, the establishment of the students union said that he would not be allowed to speak in any of its premises.
Coming from a Quaker background, and believing That free speech and tolerance are perhaps the most important hallmarks of a civilised society, I could not believe that that action would be allowed and, with some others, I went to see the then vice-chancellor, Asa Briggs. I remember the meeting clearly as, on the wall of his study was a huge Chartist banner which proclaimed,
We must awaken the people to a recognition of their rights.
Asa Briggs asked us what we wanted, and I said that we would like him to recognise that we, too, had some rights and that we would like him to provide a room in the university to hold the meeting.
After some discussion, which meant little from his point of view, Asa Briggs made it quite clear that he was not prepared to allow us to have any room on the campus. Now, when I hear or have letters from vice-chancellors saying, "Leave it to us. We are responsible people," I recall that meeting, when nothing was done. Neither he nor any of the other academic staff attempted to create a climate of opinion in which the no platform policy could be reversed. The High Commissioner for India spoke to an academic group some time later and was abused violently. It is a cancerous thing.
I and others arranged to hold the meeting in the Corn Exchange in Brighton. We managed for a short time to reverse the no platform policy at Sussex. My recollection is that the most active people came from religious backgrounds. They were Catholics and Jewish students, for example, who realised that once the cancer of no free speech took hold in the university, the freedom of all groups would soon be impaired.
It is no use vice-chancellors saying that we can leave it to them, and nor is it any good the Master of Balliol college saying, as he did today in The Times, that there is some distinction to be drawn between academic freedom and freedom of speech generally. If a mature democratic society is not prepared quitely to listen and respond to other people's points of view, there will sooner or later be no academic freedom either. It is the attitude of Asa Briggs in 1970 and that of Anthony Kenny and others which, more than anything else, makes me realise that there is something spineless in a part of the English establishment and which is the main cause of my being active in politics.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing the clause. We should remember that the vice-chancellors have had a long time to put matters right.
My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State raised the subject first and that led to the original guidelines. My private Member's Bill earlier this year, which was supported by Conservative students and those of other parties, forced the Government to reconsider and strengthen the guidelines. Subsequently there has been much talk, but nothing has come near the central issue, which is that the vice-chancellors have demonstrated a weakness in universities. They want "free speech, but" and that syndrome enables them to support, either directly or indirectly, a policy that is contrary to the ethos of universities.
I was horrified to read in The Times today an article that purported to separate freedom for members of universities to lecture from the freedom of visitors to speak at universities. It is surely crystal clear to university staff and, I hope, to hon. Members that freedom of speech is a seamless robe.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says that it is wrong that the National Front should be allowed to speak, but he is wrong. The House determines the limits of free speech and the limits of tolerance. If a person makes a speech which is contrary to the Race Relations Act or any other law there is a remedy through the courts. If a person speaks in that manner at a university or anywhere else outside the House he will be arraigned before a court, and rightly so. If we find that the boundaries are inadequate it is for the House to change them. It is not up to a bunch of students, who are irresponsible to the law, to decide which person is suitable to have the right to speak at a university.
The root of the trouble is the no-platform policy. The universities know that, but they will not tackle the problem. Vice-chancellors need the Bill, because they do not take on the central issue which is that most problems arise not from staff of universities but in the student unions. The vice-chancellors have not taken sufficient control of the unions.
Students argue that they should have the right to decide these matters for themselves. If they were an ordinary club, that might be true—a Conservative club might wish to invite only Conservative speakers—but students join unions as part of the university structure. It is compulsory. Most Labour Members would wish to retain that system, but that requires that all students should be able to have a full expression of a range of views. If that is stopped it will not be possible to sustain the argument that all students must be members of the students union. It could lead to a dangerous conclusion.
I wish the clause well. I do not think that it is quite as good as my Bill, because it is slightly woollier. However, I hope that the clause will succeed.

Sir John Farr: This is probably one of the most important clauses in an important Bill. As has been made clear in the speeches of my hon. Friends, the House is determined to ensure that the clause is retained in the Bill.
We have heard illustrations from my hon. Friends of distressing events that have happened to them. I wish only to say that I hope that the Government will not allow vice-chancellors to shelter behind the excuse of lack of cash to do the job. The obligations in clause 41 will involve extra expenses.
Some vice-chancellors do not agree with hon. Members who say that all universities must be places of uninterrupted free speech. They will do their best to disrupt the Government's intention. I hope that we ensure that the necessary cash will he made available in our places of learning.

Mr. Radice: The Opposition are strongly in favour of freedom of speech. It is essential to maintain that freedom in the campuses. We deplore events such as that at Bristol. It is important that people are able to express their views in universities and polytechnics, however unpopular those views are, provided that they are within the law.

Mr. Sayeed: Does the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) disagree with the no-platform policy?

Mr. Radice: I have made that clear on many occasions. We are totally against the no-platform policy. The question is whether we should ensure freedom of speech by legislation. That is the gamble the House is taking tonight. We share some of the vice-chancellors' concerns —some harsh remarks have been made about them by hon. Members. One might think that vice-chancellors were all members of the Labour party, but that is not so. Most of them are Conservatives.
The vice-chancellors are right to be worried. The legislation creates a number of problems. Demarcation is an issue, as is judging in advance that which is lawful. There is a problem about the conflict of duties. We covered such problems at length in Committee.
Vice-chancellors are worried that they might have to be judges and police. They are worried about vexatious legislation. They believe that the legislation might inhibit freedom of speech rather than protect it. That is a serious view. We shall have to see what happens.
I share the concern about those who try to stop people from speaking freely, but we have to be certain that legislation will improve the present position. I am not convinced by what has been said.
My view is that the best way forward — it is in the Bill—is through a code of practice. I assume that the Bill will rely on that code of practice because that is what the Minister said in Committee. If so, we should rely entirely upon the code of practice. That is probably the best way. We should not embark on a legislative path which might lead to many problems.

3 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): Clause 41 honours the Government's undertaking in another place to introduce a clause to protect freedom of speech at institutions of higher and further education. The Government have no intention of resiling from their commitment to such a clause, and cannot therefore accept the proposal from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) that the clause should be left out of the Bill. I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) in Committee—that the Government regret the necessity to introduce legislation on this subject.
I assure hon. Members that the Government preserve a sound sense of proportion on the whole issue—there is no sudden, massive threat to freedom of speech at our institutions of higher learning. However, the virus of intolerance spreads swiftly and insidiously. It is enough to recall the dismal roll-call of dishonour in the nine months between October 1985 and June 1986, not to speak of the incidents that we have witnessed in the few weeks that universities have been at work again. The case for action has been reinforced by those events. The Government do not intend to stand by and watch freedom of speech being eroded—all the more so since I am convinced that the case for action grows as it becomes clearer that a strain of degenerate illiberalism is emerging in our society as a whole. The mentality that insists of filling the minds of our children with sexual or political perversions at the earliest possible age is the same as that which will later tell the polytechnic student what opinions will or will not be tolerated on campus.
The authorities of our higher education institutions have shown their concern to defend freedom of speech. Their representative bodies have issued guidance on the subject to their institutions. But the number of recent incidents and the spirit of the times suggest that guidance is, unfortunately, not enough. Much as the Government regret the need to provide a legislative basis for the purpose, they remain convinced that one is needed so that members, students and employees of higher and further education institutions and visiting speakers should be free to express and to discuss any point of view within the limits of what the law permits.
A variety of concerns has been expressed about particular circumstances that might confront those responsible for the implementation of their duty under the clause. I shall not attempt to discuss in detail any of the hypothetical examples that have been cited either in the House or in the press—other than to observe that some of the suggestions vary between the fanciful and the farcical—for example, the suggestion that the legislation would allow people to talk loudly in libraries, or the completely mistaken concept that the legislation would allow the Moonies to force their way into a college chapel. It is inconceivable that the legislation could be interpreted in that way. If half of the ingenuity that has been devoted to manufacturing plausible hypotheses that are patently outside the Bill were devoted to ensuring that it works, that would be a service to democracy and to freedom of speech.
I wish to emphasise that the clause calls upon those responsible to take such steps as are "reasonably practicable"—that phrase is repeated three times in this short clause— to secure freedom of speech, within the law, for certain people on the premises of certain establishments. It does not seek to secure freedom of speech for everyone everywhere. We do not believe, as has been suggested, that the courts would have difficulty with the concept of a visiting speaker. Such a speaker is not any person who turns up unsolicited to speak on the premises of an institution; he is someone who has a claim to be there and his claim can be tested against the provisions of the institution's code of practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) alluded to that point.
Again, the clause is not intended to give anyone a right to demand access to a particular part of an institution. If there is a lecture room which has traditionally been used by visiting speakers, the clause probably implies a right to the use of that room when it is available. But that does not mean that if all suitable rooms have been booked on a given date, a visiting speaker or a student society could demand the use, for example, of the senior common room or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse!) suggested, the college chapel.
There has been the further suggestion that the reference to freedom of speech within the law might be read as demanding that institutional authorities should vet a speaker's text in advance, but the clause does not lay on the authorities of institutions any duty to ensure that the views expressed by speakers are within the law. That is for the speaker to worry about, and if anyone believed that a speaker or a group had abused the law, or was proposing to do so, he or it could apply to the police and ultimately to the courts like everyone else.
I should like to stress that this legislation is by no means a panacea. There is obviously an area where the law needs

to be strengthened, but that law, by its very nature. cannot be impregnable. we have been reminded of that by the events in Bristol last week.
There has been a good deal of talk both within the Chamber and in the press about over-hasty recourse to law, vexatious litigation and the rest, but it seems that in real life, as has been said by a number of my hon. Friends, the first effect of this new legislation will be to concentrate the minds of a number of vice-chancellors and the directors of other institutions on their existing arrangements, which in some instances may be cobwebbed with time or otherwise outdated. I know that there are instances where vice-chancellors are examining their disciplinary procedures, and it seems that that is no bad thing. If the unhappy experience of the past few months is to be used to good advantage in the framing of codes of conduct, there will be little likelihood of recourse to vexatious litigation.

Mr. Rhodes James: Students are adults and they are subject to the normal criminal law. Why does not the Crown prosecution service become involved when there are clear cases, as in the case of one of my constituents to which I have already referred, of violent assault and physical abuse?

Mr. Walden: My understanding is that much would depend on the action of the victim herself. I am well aware of the detail or the outline of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not know whether the victim entered into litigation.
The Government do not believe that institution authorities will have anything to fear provided that they can demonstrate that they have taken—again I quote from the clause—
such steps as are reasonably practicable
to protect freedom of speech within the law. If they have done all that they reasonably can, they will have fulfilled their duty under the clause. It has been suggested that the clause will make institution authorities more cautious arid thereby actually reduce freedom of speech, but the Government do not accept this argument. The instinct to be cautious will need to be measured against the possibility of an action being brought if
such steps as arc reasonably practicable
to protect freedom of speech are not taken. Thus the clause will require authorities to exercise judgment, sometimes as to whether a meeting should proceed at all. It will not prevent them from concluding in the last resort, although they would do well to consult the police before reaching such a conclusion, that a meeting should be cancelled or at least postponed because the threat of a breach of the peace was too substantial. But the clause will be beneficial in requiring them to weigh the situation most carefully before reaching a decision, rather than simply taking the line of least resistance.
I should like to mention briefly one or two of the issues that have been raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East asked me a specific question to which I feel bound to give a specific reply. The answer is that the question posed by the hon. Gentleman is rather far-fetched. The position is no different from the present one. Disorder occurred, sadly, at a number of meetings and that is why we need the provision that we are discussing. How can a university or college authority be said to aid and abet a public order offence merely by allowing a meeting to take place? The other questions


raised by the hon. Gentleman have been dealt with already in my speech. I am pleased to note that Oxford university has abandoned its no-platform policy. I doubt very much whether that would have happened if the Government had not been so active in this area.
I take note of the many, varied and rather colourful examples which have been given to me by my hon. Friends. It would take too long to review them in detail. I found them most poignant, most telling, and I think excellent reasons for supporting the legislation, which I am sure we shall all do now.

Mr. Freud: There is no hon. Member who is opposed to free speech or who does not cherish the right to disagree. I do not believe that we have had a good reason from the Minister or anyone else why clause 41, which states in part
shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure freedom of speech within the law",
will do anything that has not been done previously. When the Minister said that this is a law to concentrate the minds of the vice-chancellors, it showed the complete paucity of his argument. I am not convinced that we need such a law, hastily introduced in another place, tacked on to the Bill at late notice. Until there is genuine consultation between the police, the National Union of Students, the student bodies, the vice-chancellors and the directors of the polytechnics, this legislation will not be—

Mr. Nicholas Soames: What about the cleaners?

Mr. Freud: I agree; let us include the porters and the cleaners. Let us ensure that all the people involved have a say in making the legislation better than it would appear to be.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 17, Noes 173.

Division No. 288]
[3.11 am


AYES


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Patchett, Terry


Boyes, Roland
Radice, Giles


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Snape, Peter


Freud, Clement
Winnick, David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Leadbitter, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Mr. Mark Fisher and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Derek Fatchett.


Nellist, David



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brinton, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Batiste, Spencer
Browne, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruinvels, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Budgen, Nick


Benyon, William
Burt, Alistair


Best, Keith
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cash, William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)





Colvin, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Cope, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Miscampbell, Norman


Dicks, Terry
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Moynihan, Hon C.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Neale, Gerrard


Dover, Den
Newton, Tony


Dunn, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Norris, Steven


Emery, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fallon, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Farr, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Favell, Anthony
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Forman, Nigel
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pollock, Alexander


Forth, Eric
Portillo, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Powley, John


Franks, Cecil
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gale, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Galley, Roy
Rathbone, Tim


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Renton, Tim


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rhodes James, Robert


Gow, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gregory, Conal
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Ground, Patrick
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ryder, Richard


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Haselhurst, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hickmet, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Hind, Kenneth
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Holt, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Spencer, Derek


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Jackson, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stern, Michael


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Key, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sumberg, David


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Knox, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thurnham, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Trippier, David


Lightbown, David
Trotter, Neville


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Walden, George


Lord, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lyell, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Watts, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Maclean, David John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Madel, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Major, John
Wolfson, Mark


Malone, Gerald
Yeo, Tim


Marland, Paul
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mates, Michael



Mather, Carol
Tellers for the Noes:


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 43

DUTY TO SECURE BALANCED TREATMENT OF POLITICAL ISSUES

Amendment made: No. 151, in page 47, line 18, leave out 'should be' and insert 'are'.—[Mrs. Rumbold.]

Clause 46

APPRAISAL OF PERFORMANCE OF TEACHERS

Amendment made: No. 167, in page 52, line 40, at end insert—
'(4) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such associations of local authorities, and representatives of teachers, as appear to him to be concerned; and
(b) any other person with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable:.—[Mrs. Rumbold.]

Clause 47

GRANTS FOR TEACHER TRAINING, ETC.

Amendment proposed: No. 168, in page 53, line 4, at end insert—
'(bb) education welfare officers:'.—[Mrs. Rumbold.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following—Government amendments Nos. 169 and 170.
Amendment No. 172, in page 53, line 7, at end insert
'and in making such payments shall have regard to the provision of training for teachers of children with special education needs'.
Amendment No. 171, in page 53, line 7, at end insert
'(f) school librarians.'.
Government amendment No. 173.

Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State reconsider clause 47 in which, having got powers to distribute money for in-service training according to his priorities, he lists teachers, youth and community workers, educational psychologists, local education authority inspectors and education advisers employed by such authorities? I ask the Secretary of State to add to that list the training of teachers who deal with special educational needs.
The Government have a precedent in that their own amendments specify the inclusion of education welfare officers. I cannot see that the Secretary of State has good cause to include education welfare officers and ignore those teachers who deal with special educational needs. It would be silly to compete with groups deserving of special mention in the clause, but there is a case to be made for special needs. A very small percentage of teachers are qualified in special needs. Mary Warnock estimates that 20 per cent. of children have special needs at some time, so most teachers will need skills to enable them to cope.
I hope that the Minister, even if she will not allow me amendment No. 172, will commit herself to looking at the amendment and perhaps giving some hope to the people who are desperately in need of more teachers for children with special educational needs.

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government acknowledge the importance of training for special educational needs. That commitment has been demonstrated by the fact that of the £200 million expenditure which is proposed under this clause in 1987–88 — about 10 to 15 per cent. up on

present levels—it is proposed that £70 million should be used to support national priority areas, of which special education is one. It must be right, however, for areas of national priority to be decided from time to time in the light of the facts rather than to seek to predetermine them in legislation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 169, in page 53, line 6, leave out 'and'.
No. 170, in page 53, line 7, at end insert—
';and
(f) such other classes of person, employed in connection with the discharge of any of the functions of such authorities, as may be prescribed.'.
No. 173, in page 53, line 32, at end insert—
'education welfare officer" means any person who is employed by a local education authority, or employed by any other authority in connection with education, and whose duties include securing the regular attendance at school of pupils of compulsory school age;'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 48

RECOUPMENT

Amendment made: No. 177 in page 54, line 40, after 'apply' insert—

(a) in relation to pupils who do not fall within a prescribed category; or
(b) '.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 53

TRAVELLING AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES FOR GOVERNORS OF SCHOOLS AND ESTABLISHMENTS OF FURTHER EDUCATION

Amendment made: No. 179, in page 59, line 20, leave out 'but not' and insert
'(including provision for allowances not to be paid in respect of certain categories) but shall not make different provision'. —[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 54

REPEAL OF SECTION 4 OF 1944 ACT

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move Amendment No. 224, in. page 60, line 25, leave out clause 54.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 225, in schedule 6, page 81, line 11, leave out column 3.

Mr. Spearing: I regret that I cannot be brief in moving this amendment, for reasons which will emerge in the course of my remarks. [Interruption.] I see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), saying from a sedentary position that I never am brief. Other hon. Members will know that often I am brief. However, I make no excuse for not being brief on this occasion, and the Minister, whose grace is less apparent than his intellect, may understand why when I speak about what he said in Committee.
The Report stage gives hon. Members with knowledge of these matters an opportunity to speak to the whole House, and for the Minister not to recognise that, having


been in the House representing the people of Dartford for many years, is reprehensible, and I shall say no more on that topic.
The clause seeks to delete sections 4 and 5 of the Education Act 1944. I am concerned particularly with section 4, because it established central advisory councils for England and Wales. The 1944 Act was one of the most important bipartisan measures to pass through Parliament in the last 50 years. It laid the foundations of the post-war education system, which might be better than it is; this Bill would not be before us were there not serious concerns about education today.
That Act exemplified a great deal about education because education requires consent at every level, from Elizabeth house, where the Minister sits with his advisers, to every classroom in the country. Indeed, if I were giving priority, I would start with the classroom and end with Queen Elizabeth house.
The quality of our education system depends a great deal on the quality with which it is managed and discussed, both here and in Elizabeth house, and the status we give it in terms of public affairs. I make no apology for making that point because the whole of the 1944 Act was bipartisan, dealing with public affairs rather than politics.
An unfortunate trade mark of the present Government is that they seem to equate public affairs with anything to do with the state and do not put a ring fence around certain parts of it which are important to the quality of public life. One of the greatest problems in public life, which we all share—Dartford and Newham, Kingston and Durham—is that too infrequently—

Mrs. Rumbold: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I represent the constituency of Mitcham and Morden.

Mr. Spearing: I apologise to the hon. Lady. Her constituency is a borough within the general area to which I referred.
I hope that the Minister would agree that one of the problems in our national life, which is universal in all institutions whether they be public, private or parliamentary—and that includes all political parties—is that we are too unwilling to consult people who have knowledge and experience before we take decisions. Time and again we complain about the malaise in public life or in the public affairs of the nation. Almost without exception, if one considers the consultative procedures and the way in which we gather experience and place that at everyone's disposal—which is, after all, one of the central features of our Parliamentary democracy — we find something wanting.
If we were to mention to those who make a serious study of education or, better still, to those who have served in education for a long time the names Hadow, Spens, Crowther, Newsom and Plowden, they would mean a great deal. I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement with that. These were the nicknames of reports—named after the chairmen—of the central advisory councils which the Bill now seeks to abolish.
One of the features of these councils is their professionalism. They have a wide acceptance. On the whole, Parliament and successive Ministers of Education accepted them and, by and large, they were implemented.

Not everyone agreed with them and I did not necessarily agree with everything that they said but they were able to bring a wide consensus into legislation and educational practice.
I will now explain why I cannot be brief. For 14 years before I was elected to the House I was a teacher in a classroom. I had no guarantee of being elected, it was merely chance as is the case with most hon. Members. But for that chance, I might still be in the classroom. I will not let this unique opportunity pass. I want to keep faith with what I was doing for 14 years, grappling with the central problems of secondary education, problems which are now looming large in national life and with which people are trying to deal. I want to keep faith with those in the classrooms at the moment. Hon. Members probably have no idea of the degree of mental and physical strain which is now apparant in our schools.
To understand these problems, one must experience teaching. I suggest that one should not experience it for a year or a week or two. Rather one should witness several rounds of the process. A round is not one year, it is the period in which a pupil passes through a school. It is really at least five years.
The central advisory councils were, by universal consent, useful. Why will they not be useful in future? My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) asked the Minister during the Committee proceedings of the Bill why the councils should be done away with. The Minister replied that to accept my hon. Friend's argument he would have to
behave in contrary fashion to the undertaking that the Government gave in their response to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts during the 1981–82 Session." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 July 1986; c. 585.]
Select Committees are akin to those educational commissions, because they can gather the experience and wisdom of those who have spent a lifetime's experience in various areas. That is one of their great irrigating factors.
The Minister said, "We gave an undertaking." That sounds as though it was in response to a recommendation, but the Committee's recommendation was not that the councils should be abolished. Indeed, it was to the contrary. It recommended that the central advisory councils should be reconstituted because,
We are … persuaded of the need for a body which can determine policy and set criteria, and we believe that there is a gap in the present arrangements. The technique of handling specific issues more generally within the education system by the appointment of committees or single individuals to conduct inquiries, while it has its uses, makes for discontinuity and uncertainty, and is also potentially open to abuse by a Secretary of State who wished to disguise a political decision by the appointments of committees or individuals who could be relied upon to support his view. (We should emphasise at once that we have no evidence that such a tactic has ever been used by a Secretary of State, but we wish to draw attention to the danger.) We see the need for more permanent bodies which can meet continuously, develop ways of working, and to which issues of many different kinds can be referred. We believe there is a need for permanent Central Advisory Councils which could advise, among other things, on examinations policy, and we have already made recommendations which would give the reconstituted Councils power to determine national criteria and to provide continuing guidance in examinations policy.
That could almost have come from the Committee stage of the Education Act 1944, which I recommend the Minister and all interested Members to read. It is perfectly in line with the spirit which set up the central advisory


councils and for which Mr. Rab Butler obtained universal support in the House. Moreover, section 5 of the Act said that there should be an annual report to Parliament on the proceedings of the central advisory councils, because they would retain some broad remit.
In answer to the Select Committee's recommendations, we had what the Minister called in Committee an undertaking. It was not an undertaking at all. It was slapped down. In his second response to that Select Committee report, which is Cmnd. 8648 of 1981–82, he said:
Successive Secretaries of State have continued to value the contribution of informed outside opinion on a wide range of policy matters over the 15 year period since the last Central Advisory Council reports were published. Their approach has been to charge committees of inquiry or independent individuals specific remits, an approach which has the advantage that the constitution and duration of inquiries can be matched to the specific matters on which the Secretary of State is seeking advice … The Government believe that this approach has worked well and have concluded that there is no need for separate and permanent Central Advisory Councils: they will therefore take the first legislative opportunity which presents itself to repeal Section 4 of the Education Act 1944.
That is where we are now. In the meantime, there was a duty on the Secretary of State or Minister of State for Education of the day to appoint those councils, because Parliament had said that they should exist. No doubt the 1944 Parliament, in its wisdom, made the very same case that the Select Committee made in 1981–82. Had that central advisory council been sitting in continuous session with a revolving membership, as had been foreseen at the start, and not used for a succession of specific inquiries, some of the problems to which the House has been addressing itself recently in education might have been less difficult to resolve.
I make no party point about the fact that, from about 1967 onwards, successive Ministers refused to appoint central advisory councils. On 22 October 1971, I had an Adjourment debate on this very topic. In that debate I rehearsed some of the points that I have made today.
We must remember that the central advisory councils had an additional specific power. The 1944 Act provides that
it shall be the duty of those Councils to advise the Minister upon such matters connected with educational theory and practice as they think fit, and upon any questions referred to them by him.
In other words, they could make their own inquiries. They did not have to wait for a reference from the Secretary of State as every successive single advisory committee—about 13 or 15 of them—has had to do. The councils were not entirely creatures of the Secretary of State although they were appointed by him and accountable to him in making reports to Parliament.
Could it be that successive Secretaries of State saw that as an area over which they did not have the control that they would have if they appointed individual committees? That interpretation certainly seems to carry some conviction. It means that over a long period from 1967 until now successive Ministers of all parties have been breaking the law. That was the theme of my Adjournment debate on 22 October 1971, in which the Minister replying was none other than the then Secretary of State for Education and Science—the present Prime Minister.
I had hoped that the then Secretary of State, having broken the law or at any rate not complied with it, on a bi-partisan basis, would either have defended the thesis

that the councils were not useful and proposed legislation to put things right or, conversely, that she would consider the points that I had made and perhaps appoint a central advisory council in accordance with the law. The right hon. Lady, however, said no such thing. She said:
The background is completely different and it is against this background"—
of many advisory committees—
that the position of the C.A.C. should be viewed now. Against this background there has developed a tendency on the part of successive Secretaries of State during the past 15 years or more to leave the setting up of C.A.C.s until a major topic arises which only a council of this nature can appropriately deal with." —[Official Report, 22 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1197.]
That was better than nothing. We had our Crowther and Spens from that, but it would have been far better if the central advisory councils had been meeting permanently as Parliament required and sorting out some of the problems that have arisen in secondary education, drawing on the professional expertise of people with a commitment to that cause. Instead, they were not set up as Parliament required and now they are to disappear altogether. I challenge the Minister replying today to give the real reasons rather than talking about a commitment made to a Select Committee which in fact recommended that the councils should be reconstituted and that the law should be kept.
I close on this. I believe that the then Secretary of State for Education and Science quite possibly simply did not know what she was about. When I raised the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time on 17 July 1984 the right hon. Lady said:
I do not think that I was ever taken to task for refusing to obey the law in the Education Act 1944." —[Official Report, 17 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 168.]
It may have been a technicality for the right hon. Lady, but it was not and is not a technicality for people in the classroom because the professional approach of the central advisory councils exemplified the partnership in education.
I spoke earlier of consensus and agreement. Education can thrive only with consent. In this country we have a partnership of central Government, local government and the profession, a partnership of statutory maintained schools and the voluntary sector. Only if those with wisdom and experience come together in an atmosphere of trusteeship of our national heritage in education will our education system work properly. The central advisory councils irrigated, permitted and encouraged that partnership, but now they are to be destroyed.

Mr. Dunn: I do not wish to detain the House overlong, but the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made a number of contentious points which need answering for the record and for history. He mentioned the bipartisan approach that we have had to education in Britain since 1944. I do not recollect that circular 10/65 was bipartisan. I do not recollect that the Education Act 1976 was bipartisan. I do not recollect that any commitments made by the Labour party about education in future were bipartisan. Far from it.

Mr. Radice: rose—

Mr. Dunn: I do give way, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I want to continue.
The hon. Member for Newham, South talks about the 1944 Act being a totem pole at which we all worship, but I am not a blind worshipper of that Act. The hon. Gentleman is much older than I, in terms of service and chronologically, and he will recollect that the 1944 Act had only one golden period of 12 years between 1944 and 1956 when the movement away from the 1944 Act started in the county of Leicestershire with the comprehensivisation of our schools.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Dunn: I shall not give way, because this is a lecture to which the hon. Gentleman must listen.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 1944 Act came about entirely as a result of the Norwood report of 1938. He knows that the debates in the ensuing six years from 1938 to 1944 were precisely the result of that. Mr. Butler —Lord Butler as he became—only played a role at the end of the parliamentary span of the debate. The 1944 Education Act should really have been called the Ramsbottom Act, but Rab Butler, by his appointment for a few weeks at the end of the passage of the Bill, gave it the name of the Butler Act. Do not let us worship the cant that the hon. Gentleman expressed tonight. He is wordy and erudite, but he is so wrong, both in his interpretation of history and on the bipartisan approach that he claims was brought to education. Anyone who remembers, as I do, the circular 10/65 and the Education Act 1976 cannot agree with a single word that he said.

Mr. Radice: The Minister has stirred me up by being so partisan. Nobody got rid of more grammar schools than the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State, and in that she was surely following a bipartisan approach.

Mr. Dunn: That may well be the case historically, but I do not want anybody to try to persuade the House that there has been a golden age of bipartisan approach to education. There is not and was not, apart from the 11 years between 1944 and 1955.
The hon. Member for Newham, South has read the proceedings of our Committee stage. I congratulate him. I suspect that he is the only person, other than Committee members, to do so. I am glad that he had the time to do so. But, as he knows, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) probed the Government hard in Committee and we had an interesting debate. But even the hon. Member for Ipswich accepted the logic of our argument and finally capitulated with all the sweet reason that the hon. Gentleman can summon.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, advisory councils have not met and reported for nearly 20 years. He acknowledged that and I shall be fair to him, although I do not like being so in my present mood. The hon. Gentleman talked about the unprofessional nature of some of the advice that we have been given, or he hinted at it. Does he regard the Warnock and Swann reports as unprofessional and not worthwhile? They were not set up under section 4 of the 1944 Act as central advisory councils. They are examples of the ad hoc inquiry which all Governments of recent years—I am sorry that he has not moved on since he was at school—have found the best was of supplementing the advice that we receive within the Department and without from a variety of

Standing Committees with specific functions. Of course the membership of those ad hoc committees will vary according to the specific terms of reference. He will remember too that they are quite unlike the central advisory councils whose members had a broad spread of expertise.
I do not want to spend much more time on the archaeology of the advisory councils. It is to no avail. They have given the hon. Gentleman a bit of a whirl tonight. He probably feels better for it. I certainly do not and I urge him not to press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 56

MINIMUM AGE FOR GOVERNORS OF ESTABLISHMENTS OF FURTHER EDUCATION

Amendments made: No. 181, in page 60, line 41, after 'is', insert
'a student of the institution or is.'.
No. 182, in page 60, line 42, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision restricting—

(a) in relation to such matters or classes of matter as may be prescribed;
(b) in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and
(c) to such extent as may be prescribed;

the participation of any student of such an institution who is a member of its governing body in the proceedings of that body.
(3) The instrument of government for any such institution may make such provision in relation to restricting the participation of any such student in the proceedings of its governing body (in addition to that made by the regulations) as the regulations may authorise.'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 59

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 183, in page 61, line 34, at end insert
'but does not include a governor appointed in acordance with any provision made by virtue of section 5 of this Act'.
No. 184, in page 61, line 34, at end insert—
'exclude", in relation to the exclusion of any pupil from a school, means exclude on disciplinary grounds; '.— [Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 60

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 220, in page 62, line 21, leave out 'Section 55' and insert—
'Sections 55 and 57 to 59, this section and section 61(1) to (3) and (7)'.
No. 185, in page 62, line 29, at end insert—
'including, in particular, for the purpose of bringing particular provisions into force only in relation to particular schools or categories of school.'.
No. 186, in page 62, line 38, after 'Act', insert—
'(including, in particular, the provisions which the order brings into force)'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 61

SHORT TITLE ETC.

Amendments made: No. 187, in page 63, line 2, after '1985', insert—
'and the Education Act 1986'.


No. 188, in page 63, line 12, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
'(7) In this Act—

(a) sections 45 (Recoupment: cross-border provisions), 57(1) to (3) and 60(3) to (6), this section and so much of Schedule 6 as relates to any enactment which extends to Scotland, extend to Scotland; and
(b) section 44(11) and this section extend to Northern Ireland;

but otherwise this Act extends only to England and Wales.'. —[Mr. Dunn.]

Schedule 1

GROUPED SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 190, in page 64, line 16, after `body', insert 'and head teacher.'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Schedule 2

NEW SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 191, in page 68, line 3, at end insert 'and head teacher.'.

No. 192, in page 71, line 9, at end insert—
'(4A) Sub-paragraph (4) above does not apply in relation to foundation governors.'.

No. 193, in page 72, line 4, at end insert
';and shall recommend (with reasons) persons who belong to the community served by the new school and who arc, in the opinion of the temporary governing body, suitable for appointment as co-opted members of the governing body.
(3A) Before making any recommendations under subparagraph (3) above, a temporary governing body shall consult representatives of the local business community.'.
No. 194, in page 73, line 32, leave out from `(6)' to `shall' in line 33 and insert
`Sections 6 to 8 of the 1980 Act (admission to schools)'

No. 195, in page 73, line 37, leave out sub-paragraphs (7) and (8).

No. 245, in page 66, line 38, at end insert—
`(2A) In co-opting any person (otherwise than as a temporary foundation or teacher governor) to be a member of a temporary governing body of a new school which will be a county, controlled or maintained special school, the temporary governors concerned shall—

(a) have regard—

(i) to the extent to which they and the other temporary governors are members of the local business community; and
(ii) to any representations made to the temporary governing body as to the desirability of increasing the connection between the temporary governing body and that community; and

(b) where it appears to them that no temporary governor of the new school is a member of the local business community, or that it is desirable to increase the number of temporary governors who are, co-opt a person who appears to them to be a member of that community;'.

No. 246, in page 71, line 5, after '(4)', insert
`Subject to paragraph 2(2A) above'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Schedule 3

EXCLUSION ON DISCIPLINE GROUNDS: APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 198, in page 77, line 44, leave out 'him' and insert
`the pupil or (as the case may be) parent'.
No. 199, in page 78, line 6, leave out 'him' and insert
`the pupil or (as the case may be) parent'.
No. 200, in page 78, line 24, at end insert—
'(3) No appeal against such a direction may be made by the governing body after the direction has taken effect.'.

No. 209, in page 79, line 9, after '23', insert 'of this Act.'.—[Mr. Dunn]

Schedule 4

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 211, in page 80, line 16, leave out paragraph 3.

No. 212, in page 80, line 25, at end insert—

'The Education (No. 2) Act 1968 (c.37)
In section 3(3) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1968 (application of enactment to certain establishments)—

(a) after the word "applies" there shall be inserted the words "and special schools maintained by local education authorities"; and
(b) after the word "establishments", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "and schools".'.

the Local Government Act 1974 (c.7)
In paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 (matters not subject to investigation by Local Commissioner) after the words "Act 1944" there shall be inserted the words "or sections 17 to 19 of the Education Act 1986".

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c.65)
In section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (acts done under statutory authority) the following subsections shall be added at the end—
(3) This section shall apply in relation to instruments of government and articles of government for schools made under the Education Act 1986 as it applies in relation to instruments of government and articles of government for schools made by or under any Act passed before this Act.":.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Schedule 5

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 213, in page 80, line 36, after `is', insert 'in force'.

No. 214, in page 80, line 37, after 'force', insert 'and continues in force'.

No. 215, in page 80, line 39, at end insert—
'(2) Any such instrument shall, after the commencement of section 1, be treated for the purposes of this Act as having been made by order under that section.'.

No. 216, in page 81, line 5, at end insert‖

'Recommendations by outgoing governing bodies
3.—(1) The governing body for any county, controlled or maintained special school which is constituted under an instrument of government or arrangement in force immediately before section 1 of this Act comes into force shall recommend (with reasons) to any governing body who will succeed them persons who belong to the community served by the school and who are, in their opinion, suitable For appointment as co-opted members of their successor.
(2) Before making any recommendations under subparagraph (1) above, a governing body shall consult representatives of the local business community.'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Schedule 6

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Amendments made: No. 217, in page 81, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
`In section 3(2), the words "or subsection (4) of section 2".'.
No. 218, in page 81, line 33, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 35(1), the words from "(other" to "b))".'.
No. 219, in page 81, line 34, at end insert—

'1980 c.44.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1980
Section 23(5) to (7)'.—[Mr..Dunn.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. Rumbold]

Mr. Radice: On Second Reading we said that the Bill was large but that it did not deal with the real issues. It has improved very little as it has moved through the House.
The balance on governing bodies is still not the way we would like it to be. We deplore the fact that the control of the curriculum has still been taken away from local education authorities. The Bill is still suffering from the Christmas tree effect with all the little bits added on—the clauses on freedom of speech, political indoctrination and sex education.
I wish to end on a brighter note. The only good thing was the windfall that we managed due to the discipline of the Labour party — thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and, perhaps, the fallout from the royal wedding — when we achieved a famous victory by abolishing corporal punishment. It may well be that in the end, the Bill will be best known for the fact that we managed to get rid of corporal punishment. I do not think it will be particularly famous for anything else that it will achieve.

Sir John Farr: I should like to extend a warm welcome to the Bill and refer to clause 16 on general responsibility for the conduct of schools and to clauses 28 and 29 concerning annual parents' meetings and governors' reports for parents.
During the summer, we had several meetings in my constituency about the desirability of some schools having a uniform. I suggested to my hon. Friend the Minister that mentioning uniforms in the Bill might be useful. He replied that clauses 16, 28 and 29 should give parents, teachers and governors the right to ensure that school uniforms are worn if that is the parental preference.
We have several important schools in the Leicester area which have concentrated on school uniform for many years. I am lucky to have in my constituency the Manor high school, which is being influenced by the local education authority. The parents and governors of the school regard the authority as having a non-uniform policy.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister in June whether it would be right to refer to uniforms in the Bill. He replied on 9 July that clauses 16, 28 and 29 would meet the point.
Decisions about uniform should rest with the head and governors, taking account of local values and conventions and the wishes of the majority of parents. If uniform does not appear in the Bill, it is important that it is referred to in the guidelines that may be issued so that there is no possibility of a local education authority overruling, undermining or watering down a decision that has been reached by the governors, the head and parents.
In his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister showed a sympathetic understanding of the wishes of parents of children at Manor high school at Oadby, and of governors. I have met them more than once and they all want to continue with uniform, which they find a great asset. I fully support them. My hon. Friend said:
School uniform is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. However, as a general rule, matters not specifically assigned are allocated (under clause 16(1)) to the governing body as part of their responsibility for the conduct of the school. While 'conduct' as such is not defined, we take the view—and will be issuing guidance on this—that as well as being something of a residual responsibility, it is concerned with everything that goes to make up the ethos of a school. School uniform does, in our view, contribute significantly to a school's ethos and thus, under the provisions of the Bill, the question of school uniform would be one for the governing body.
Earlier tonight, governors and teachers from Manor high school were in the Public Gallery. They hoped that this debate would come up sooner. I should be failing in my duty if I did not make their anxieties plain. I hope that guidelines in the form spelt out in the third paragraph of my hon. Friend's letter of 9 July will appear before long. If that happens, this short debate will not have been wasted.
I give the Bill a warm welcome. It is long overdue and much needed.

4 am

Mrs. Rumbold: I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) about school uniforms.
I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, but I have considered the measure in considerable depth and I believe that, on the whole, the House has produced a good piece of legislation which I welcome.
The Bill incorporates a number of elements that I believe will produce considerable improvements in the running of schools and in the curriculum. I welcome the Bill. I hope that the House will welcome it and that the country will benefit from it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Rail Freight Services (Harwich)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

Sir Julian Ridsdale (Harwich): I regard this as one of the most important Adjournment debates that I have initiated. I am trying to protect local jobs and the jobs of British seafarers in an area which has the highest rate of unemployment in East Anglia and the second highest rate in south-east England. According to the June 1986 Manpower Services Commission report, unemployment in my constituency averages 15·8 per cent. In Harwich it is nearly 14 per cent.
In my plea for the maintenance of a Harwich-based train ferry I have the support of management and the unions for a united rescue operation which will give the seafarers the chance to prove that Harwich is still the right place for these train ferries. In the view of the management of Sealink, that is an economically viable proposition, and that is why I am supporting it.
However, it is a backs-to-the-wall operation for us in Harwich, for we make our case against the background that a commercial buyer, Sea Containers, paid far too high a price for Sealink, the company for which the seafarers work. Sea Containers paid £66 million and I am told that the next offer was in single figures.
At the time of the sale in July 1984 the former Secretary of State for Transport said that the Sealink workers would
join a progressive and expanding group with the substantial resources necessary to make a real success of this important enterprise."—[Official Report, 18 July 1984; Vol. 64, c 313.]
Alas, Sea Containers has had a very bad year because of the depressed state of world shipping. Therefore, it will not be able to subsidise Sealink through some of its present troubles unless everyone realises that this is a backs-to-the-wall operation. As a consequence, badly needed investment to replace long years of neglect by British Rail will not be forthcoming as quickly as Sea Containers would have wished, not only because of the bad year that Sea Containers has had but because the Channel tunnel go-ahead this year has made borrowing for shipping and ferry interests on our east coast far more difficult.
It is a strange coincidence that I should be given this debate on Trafalgar day as I try to protect seafarers' jobs against French subsidised competition. Indeed, we seem to face a deal between two state monopolies which will mean at least 100 seafarers losing their jobs which will, in the end, go to French seamen because the French state railways have subsidised the building of a giant new ferry.
This is neither fair competition nor a fair market place. British Rail, in conjunction with the French state railways, is eliminating competition ahead of the building of the Channel fixed link when it will have a monopoly over prices. That is why I think that this act by British Rail in forcing the ferries to move from Harwich should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Government should ensure that no move is made until that has been done and a report received from the commission on British Rail's intentions and on the consequences of the move.
Apart from the action that I hope the Government will take, I shall explain why we in Harwich believe that it is an economically viable proposition to keep the Cambridge

ferry operating from Harwich. If that is accepted, it makes the case for referring to the commission British Rail's action over forcing the move of the train ferries.
Our reasons are simple. The train ferry terminal at Harwich has been properly maintained and can continue in use for many more years. It can also cope with significantly larger vessels at a modest price. The marshalling yard at Harwich can cope with additional traffic. Its main arrival and departure sidings have been electrified as part of the total electrification of the railway to Harwich. This has been paid for by the EEC.
Rail services between Harwich and the midlands and the north of England can be routed to avoid London. Continuation at Harwich will avoid heavy redundancy costs for between 185 and 195 British seafarers and shore staff. Surely it is a waste of national economic resources to construct a train ferry terminal and marshalling yard at Dover or Ramsgate, especially with the Channel tunnel in prospect, when perfectly good facilities exist in Harwich.
The big sell has been the apparent long-term economic advantages of concentrating the Harwich services in Dover as the vessels can make more round voyages in a 24-hour period. This requires a brand new terminal at Dover which is estimated to cost between £8 million and £10 million. This gives rise to problems of justification and financing in light of the Channel tunnel project. There is every probability that British seafarers from Harwich who took part in the Falklands campaign will have their jobs taken by the French because their Government have subsidised the train ferry to replace the Harwich ferries.
Our Merchant Navy is now being reduced to a level that could not sustain support to our armed forces for a Falklands-scale operation, let alone our commitment to NATO. Let us not forget that it takes 13 years to produce a master mariner. We must pay much more attention to what is happening in our merchant shipping fleet. It is a serious subject for another debate.
Is it wise for more and more of our continental trade to be routed by French ports when 40 per cent. of our continental trade is with Germany and trade with eastern Europe and the USSR is likely to increase much more in future?
Is it not better to have a choice of two British terminals rather than one in the event of breakdowns or strikes? It is very rare in recent times for both the Harwich and Dover terminals to be blocked at the same time. The customers who own or use train ferry wagons prefer the choice of two British terminals.
I am a strong supporter of privatisation, particularly since I have seen how badly Harwich has fared under British Rail compared with Felixstowe, but we are now in an exceptional situation. Surely, in view of what has happened to Sea Containers, and bearing in mind that we are not competing on a level playingfield because of subsidies paid by the French, the Government should examine the situation again.
Over a month ago I wrote to the Prime Minister and spoke to the Secretary of State for Transport and told them that privatisation was on trial over what was happening about the Sealink operations. I was also in touch with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has responsibility for privatisation, because I was so disturbed by what was happening and about the difficult financial situation of Sea Containers.
When Sealink was sold for £66 million, it was not a knock-down price as was suggested by the Leader of the


Opposition. As it turned out, it was far too high a price. It could be said that Sea Containers was shabbily treated by the Government and British Rail by their undeclared commitment, at that time, to the Channel tunnel and by BR's declared policy to move the train ferries to Dover. Surely it would have been better business, knowing the need for investment, to have warned Sea Containers that the price was too high. As it is, the serious position has put at risk the jobs of seafarers in Harwich and made investment doubly difficult, especially after the Channel tunnel announcement.
I hope that the Government will refer the action by British Rail, enforcing the move of train ferries to Dover, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and persuade British Rail to renegotiate Sealink's plan to keep the Cambridge ferry at Harwich, at least for the time being, while the commission is considering the proposed move.
We are in a new position, caused by the difficulties of Sea Containers. The least that we can do is to help its subsidiary, Sealink—which is on its own—and press for a renegotiation to determine the new price that it can offer British Rail to keep the Cambridge ferry at Harwich. Indeed, if the Government cannot help, I hope that British Rail will pay attention to what I have said and at least bridge the gap that is so serious for the seafarers.
As Member of Parliament for the seafarers in Harwich, since the move was threatened at the beginning of August I have tried to persuade British Rail to support keeping the Cambridge ferry in Harwich, at least until the position becomes a great deal clearer. I must tell the Government that no satisfactory figures have been given to me, even in confidence. British Rail, to put it mildly, has a mysterious way of accounting. No figures seem to be available, even over a five-year period. Yet in 1985 traffic levels were considerably up. It is no wonder that the seafarers are desperate.
I am sure that we have to make privatisation to be seen to succeed, and until it does we have an obligation to the seafarers affected by the current position. I have reached the conclusion that British Rail's intention is to break the back of our ferry operation in Harwich, so that eventually they will have a complete monopoly with French state railways. The move to Dover of the Cambridge ferry is a temporary expedient until the French ferry is built. That is why BR will not negotiate a reasonable price for Sealink to keep the Cambridge ferry in Harwich. They fear that Sealink will eventually build up a viable, competitive ferry service and show up the complete failure of British Rail to invest in our ports or modern ships over the past 20 years.
Indeed, in the recent negotiations between British Rail and Sealink, Sealink made an offer to which BR never responded. In my view, these are not commerical decisions — they are very suitable arrangements, or, to put it more unkindly, they are fixes between two state monopolies. That is why I think that it is the Government's duty to report British Rail's action to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is the only way that we can be fair to ourselves, the seafarers, our country and the British merchant shipping fleet, which is dwindling every day — and many of us take very seriously the plight that it is in.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Despite it being 4.14 am, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) has stated robustly the case on behalf of his constituents, expressed his concern to protect jobs and sought my intervention. It might be helpful if I begin by explaining the relationship between Government and British Rail because this is central to the difficult position in which my hon. Friend places me.
It is essential for the efficient management of the British Rail business that there should be a clear definition of the responsibilities which belong to Government and those which belong to railways. It is essential also that the railway management is given the freedom to get on and run its railway without constant political interference. That is why we gave the British Rail chairman a clear and comprehensive set of objectives in October 1983, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced new objectives for the chairman to the House earlier today. Both the 1983 objectives and those announced today endorse the policy of successive Governments for many years that British Rail's freight business should act as a commercial business. It has been made clear also that we expect the freight sector to provide an adequate return on capital in the same way as any other business.
I must tell my hon. Friend that it would be wrong if British Rail were to give subsidies to its freight sector, so enabling it to compete artificially and unfairly with its private sector road competitors. It is right that British Rail should receive no subsidy for freight operations. It can meet its target only by succeeding in the market place, which means meeting customers' requirements at prices that they are prepared to pay, and that is against very tough competition at present.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Would my hon. Friend agree that there are difficult circumstances when the French Government are really giving subsidies for the building of a French ferry?

Mr. Mitchell: I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall address it shortly.
I believe that it is right that British Rail should operate its freight sector on a commercial basis, competing for the traffic for which it is best suited. We believe that the interests of the transport user are best served by the maximum competition, and competition is ultimately in the best interests of the transport industries themselves. Nobody likes the immediate effects of the difficult decisions which have to be taken, but that does not mean that those decisions can or should be ducked. The surest way to ongoing decline is to fail to adapt quickly to changing markets.
For a number of years there have been two train ferry services to the continent in the context of the debate, one from Harwich to Zeebrugge and the other from Dover to Dunkirk. The shipping services involved at Harwich were operated by British Rail's subsidiary, Sealink. When Sealink was sold in 1984 to Mr. James Sherwood's group, Sea Containers, BR entered into a contract with Sealink for the continued operation of the service.
Unfortunately, the train ferry business has been losing heavily for several years. The number of rail wagons carried on ships specially designed for that purpose has dropped from 114,000 in 1970 to only 66,000 in 1984, and


the train ferry activity in 1984 incurred substantial losses. Revenue failed even to meet shipping costs alone by £4 million per annum, and made no contribution towards direct rail costs. That scale of losses is pretty shattering. No business can operate profitably if it has to carry the overheads of a much larger volume of traffic than is now available. The operation is split into two separate activities and it is fundamentally uneconomic. The ships are too small and too slow to be cost-effective on the run from Harwich to Zeebrugge and the distance is more than twice that from Dover to Dunkirk. The two ships operating out of Harwich are able to achieve only one round trip a day each. At Dover, three ships of the same size can achieve eight round trips between them. The same volume carried in those eight round trips could be achieved in two round trips by a larger, faster vessel.
British Rail has, therefore, decided that the only way in which it can make the train ferry business pay is by using larger, faster ships on a short sea crossing. This will enable the trains to share the available space with roll-on/roll-off traffic, and the higher speed and shorter sea crossing will allow the ships to make a larger number of round trips each day thus reducing overall costs to something approaching £5 million a year. British Rail's decision was taken only after protracted negotiations in which Sealink reduced the price it was offering at Harwich, but that was not sufficient to make continued operations viable. British Rail's decision means that, from January, it will stop operating out of Harwich.
I turn to my hon. Friend's point about an alleged offer by Sealink which was not replied to by British Rail. My understanding is that in a telephone conversation it was made clear that that offer was no longer extant. In any case, it would not have been sufficient to change the decision.
British Rail tells us that its employees involved at Harwich will be offered redundancy terms or alternative employment on other BR services. I understand that there will be some redundancies among the merchant seaman involved, although I believe that some of them at least will be offered employment within Sealink. I very much regret the need for job losses, but from the evidence available it appears that BR has no realistic alternative. If it is to face up to competition in international freight transport, it has to find ways of reducing its costs. The whole future of train ferry operations is very much in the balance and there are clearly a number of difficult decisions facing BR. However, they are decisions that BR must take on the basis of its own commercial interests. It is only by this means that the long-term security of trade and jobs will be preserved. To do anything other than that would he nothing short of commercial suicide.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I think that his suggestion that BR's decision should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is misguided. British Rail has no monopoly of freight services, internally or to the continent, and it will have no monopoly of freight services through the Channel tunnel. Freight is an extremely competitive business. That is why British Rail must retrench and rationalise to remain in this type of business. There is no way that it has a monopoly in this field.
Despite the financial and commercial arguments, my hon. Friend has left me in no doubt that the decision is hotly contested in Harwich, and that rumours are going

around which imply that BR's motives were other than purely commercial ones. I should like to deal with some of those questions.
My hon. Friend claimed that privatisation is on trial. As I have pointed out, the proportion of rail freight is declining, and one of the two routes concerned had to go. It is geography and the economics of operation which dictate which of the two routes goes. The economics of operation are not likely to be substantially affected by any change of ownership. A change of ownership cannot possibly affect geography. The length of the crossing to Zeebrugge is the main reason why the Harwich service cannot be operated as economically as the Kent service. The decision would have been the same whoever owned Sealink.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: The Minister has referred to figures showing a decline in freight rates. My figures show that between 1984 and 1985 they went up by between 10 and 15 per cent. That is why I challenge some of the figures that British Rail has given the Minister.

Mr. Mitchell: If the figure has gone up by between 10 and 15 per cent., that represents a drop in the ocean of what is needed to make the operation viable. What is the wonder of the matter is that British Rail has continued to operate a service at a massive loss for so long. It is not that it has now reached the point at which it is rationalising one service across the continent. For a long time it has split its operations in two and has lost money on both of them. We must take that on board.
My hon. Friend raised the quesion of the subsidy for the French ship. I know that certain fears exist. It is suggested that the French SNCF vessel which BR plans to use instead of the two older, smaller Sealink vessels is unfairly subsidised. The information we have been able to obtain leads us to believe that no operating subsidies are available to that ship; nor do we have any evidence that it has received shipbuilding subsidies beyond those permitted within the EEC and which would have applied had it been built by BR in this country.
My hon. Friend suggested that the loss of the two ferries might have defence implications and affect the United Kingdom's ability to respond in an international emergency. Those ferries would be used in time of emergency not as rail carriers hut for heavy vehicles. However, neither is ideal for that purpose. Any loss of vessels for defence purposes is undesirable but at present we are not short of vessels suitable for the roles that these two Sealink ships might play in an emergency.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I am concerned not about the loss of the two vessels but about the loss of seafarers' jobs. I underline that it takes 13 years to train a master mariner properly. Because we shall lose seafarers' jobs in this case, we are in danger of putting our defence interests at risk.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I accept the validity of his point about the length of time it takes to train seamen, but I do not think that, in the context of the massive losses which BR is suffering on the Harwich to Zeebrugge route, it would be proper to burden BR with a non-commercial remit to train seafarers. There must be other ways to approach that problem.
My hon. Friend expressed his worries on electrification. Most of the electrification project is unaffected by the


Harwich decision, but some expenditure on wiring of the sidings at Harwich has been rendered nugatory. That is unfortunate, but circumstances have changed since the original decision was made. British Rail will be trying to ensure that such waste does not recur. I should add that the EEC transport infrastructure grant was not paid for the train ferry electrification work. I am happy to relieve my hon. Friend's mind on one point: the transport infrastructure grant which the European Commission is paying towards electrification is purely for passenger services and is not affected by withdrawal of the train ferry service. My hon. Friend said that the operation to which he referred was a viable business proposition. I think that I have been able to explain that it is not. It has been losing so much money that it could not possibly continue.
I should like to end on a more optimistic note. United Kingdom passenger and freight traffic have been expanding for a long time. Prospects are for continued growth. Freight traffic generally through the port of Harwich has increased from 2·15 million tonnes in 1970 to 3·75 million tonnes in 1984. As my hon. Friend is aware, Sealink Harbours Ltd. has plans for further expansion of its facilities at Parkeston quay and is seeking powers from Parliament to enable it to undertake the necessary development. I am well aware that BR's decision is a blow to my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I hope that he and they will appreciate that in the circumstances which I have described BR had no real alternative and Harwich still has a bright future in other activities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock am.